"myths And Half-truths About Illegal Immigration"

[ByaKya]

Quote by: notworthabean you have over 1000 posts and still cannot work the quote feature. amazing. nope, its perfectly apt. just because you fail to understand it does not change anything. seeing as I live in the north east and don't watch WWE I guess i am just missing out on all that English/Spanish announcing done. However I would bet it will remain mostly done in English for the future. Whites aren't the only people who speak English, but thanks for telling me something I already know. what your article says is that being able to speak Spanish is a plus. well no shit Sherlock, we have an immigrant population which is not fully integrated, plus millions south of the border who speak English either poorly or not at all. Naturally some sales/customer service people will be bi-lingual. if you speak Chinese its also helpful, same with Arabic. speaking two languages is very helpful. but see your "pwnt" by your own article. this does not mean in order to work in the south west you need to be fluent in Spanish, it means that being able to speak Spanish may be helpful in certain areas, but English is a must. as you would say "pwnt"

my post made pretty clear, white/english is about "future" as a vinyl record.
add new mexico and arizona to states where whites are no longer the majority.
In those states knowing spanish is no longer a "plus" its mandatory, amigo.
GOOD GAME

[notworthabean]

Quote by: ByaKya my post made pretty clear, white/english is about "future" as a vinyl record. add new mexico and arizona to states where whites are no longer the majority. In those states knowing spanish is no longer a "plus" its mandatory, amigo. GOOD GAME

so now all hisanics are all spanish only speakers? wheres the logic?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Apokalupsis A successful nation has many characteristics of course. But the most general, and the first step, is merely existence.

What, then, are the criteria for existence?

What nations in the history of the world have ever even practiced libertarianism? Let's start there.

Actually, we're going to have to start even further back. Can explain to me what "libertarianism" means to you?

Perhaps this would be better as a Special Debate over in Miscellaneous. I'm ready when you are.

- Rob

[brien]

Really? so the Union had the right to violate the will of the confederates?

Some might say the Confederates violated the will of the nation.

[brien]

What nations in the history of the world have ever even practiced libertarianism?

For the most part, the United States of America in 1789.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Autolykos What, then, are the criteria for existence?

Being an actual nation.

Has there ever been one?

Actually, we're going to have to start even further back. Can explain to me what "libertarianism" means to you?

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia seems like a good start.

Perhaps this would be better as a Special Debate over in Miscellaneous. I'm ready when you are. - Rob

I don't have the time to commit to it, and I don't think it derails this thread as it is a simple question that should be capable of being answered in 1 sentence. I see no need to start a new thread about "Which nation has ever adapted the philosophy of libertarianism and shown successful results?"

You seem to want to play word games instead of dive into the argument itself. We see this a lot from libertarians for some reason (it's cult-like it seems). I'll let you decide what "successful" means since obviously, success means something entirely different to libertarians than it does to most everyone else.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: brien For the most part, the United States of America in 1789.

Really? What about it was libertarian?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: brien Some might say the Confederates violated the will of the nation.

No, the majority of southerners wished to seperate, accoring to the declaration, they had every right to. rights do not extend over others.

[brien]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary No, the majority of southerners wished to seperate, accoring to the declaration, they had every right to. rights do not extend over others.

Ughhh, you may want to read about the secession some more. The majority of southerners, whom one has to include slaves, thought secession was a good thing? The only people who though secession was the right thing to do were the Plantation owners and the landed gentry like the business class that benefited from slavery.

No, the majority of southerners wished to seperate,

This is simply not the case. See the link below.

Furthermore, when one counts slaves as southerners, it makes your statement appear meaningless. Even without the slaves counting as southerners, go to this link:

The Secession Of The Southern States

From the link:

Young, slaveholding lawyers and planters Spearheaded secession. They came to political maturity in the 1850s at a time of intensifying sectional hostilities, and they turned to the Breckinridge movement for vindication of their rights and status against the onslaughts of the antislavery North

The most prominent secessionists were known as the fire-eaters. In particular, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, Edmund Ruffin of Virginia, and Robert Barnwell Rhett, Sr., of South Carolina had earned this label for their long and uncompromising devotion to the cause of Southern independence. Outside the inner circle of Southern political power at the national level, and hence free of the need to fashion a middle position to hold together a bisectional party coalition, the fire-eaters consistently had taken a hard line on Southern rights. They pushed sectional issues to their logical extreme and applauded the breakup of the national Democratic party in 1860. Aided immeasurably by the fears provoked by John Browns raid, they popularized the right of secession among the Southern masses

snip>

In the lower South the secessionists doubted the loyalty to slavery of the yeomanry, a class of nonslaveholding farmers who composed the largest single bloc in the electorate. Although tied to the planters by a mutual commitment to white supremacy and often by bonds of kinship, these farmers occupied an ambivalent position in Southern society

snip.>

Distrustful of the upper South as a region and the yeomanry as a class, the secessionists pushed for immediate as well as separate state secession. By moving quickly, they hoped to prevent divisions within the South from coalescing into a paralyzing debate over the best means of resisting Republican rule. Since most of the rabid secessionists were Breckinridge Democrats, the party that controlled nearly all the governorships and state legislatures in the lower South, the secessionists were able to set their own timetable for disunion.

Secessionists were clearly not in the majority of the population in the south, but rather it was a powerful minority that set the stage for the War between the States.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, no you don't have to include slaves, because they were regarded as private property, which the southerners saw as theirs. Although I did drop the ball on that. And the north still had no right to intervene until all the votes had been counted, I don't think they asked the southerners, did they?

[brien]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Really? What about it was libertarian?

I will refer you to the initial formation of the US under the Constitution and the BOR as written and adopted in 1789. One could live in the western mountains of Virginia or Vermont relatively free from any government control. One would have to pay property tax on land, taxes upon liquor, and some other odd taxes, but there was no income tax. There was no giant government Diplodicus to intrude into the everyday life of a farmer, tradesman or businessman. From 1789 until the Jacksonian era, one could have lived relatively free from the intrusion of government if they chose to structure their lifestyle in such a way. Today, it is impossible.

[brien]

And the north still had no right to intervene until all the votes had been counted, I don't think they asked the southerners, did they?

I am not quite sure what you mean here. The North wasn't going to stand for a minority of people in the South to destroy the Union. This is the way they perceived southern radicals. One must remember that by 1860, the anti slavery movement was so entrenched in the North that slavery was viewed as not only inhuman moral injustice, but also too, as a social injustice. The Northern classes were so far removed from the economic benefits of slavery, from which only a minority of southern radicals benefited from, they were equipped to see slavery for the cruel lifestyle it was and secession as an excuse to use states rights as a trump card over human rights.

Oh I forgot, and btw, although slaves were considered property by some, you must realize how the government treated the sitiuation. Viz; the Missouri Compromise and the 3/5ths compromise.

three-fifths compromise: Information from Answers.com
Three-fifths compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention in which only three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegate James Wilson

.

The Missouri Compromise


Here is a good comparison between the two sides. It is worth taking the time to understand it if you are interested in the War betwen the States.

Civil War Causes, Maps

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Being an actual nation. Has there ever been one?

Many libertarians, myself possibly included, would consider the existence of a "nation" to be the antithesis of pure libertarianism. By the common definition, a nation has a government. Libertarians can point to a number of societies that have existed without strong governments but I would expect that you would claim they weren't "nations" so they don't count.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Then you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. Societies that exist without strong governments couldn't resist the imperialism of strong governments, making them impossible in a world where people desire power.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Then you are an anarchist, not a libertarian. Societies that exist without strong governments couldn't resist the imperialism of strong governments, making them impossible in a world where people desire power.

Tell that to the Irish. For centuries they didn't have a strong government and managed to mostly hold off the Romans and the English, from right next door.

In fact, the English still haven't truly "conquered" the Irish. They have a foothold in one corner of the country.

And, just take a look at the Iraqi resistance today. The "strong government" does not represent that "insurgency" but are puppets of the US. There is no government truly representing the Iraqi people. But, we're still not winning.

Keith

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Many libertarians, myself possibly included, would consider the existence of a "nation" to be the antithesis of pure libertarianism. By the common definition, a nation has a government. Libertarians can point to a number of societies that have existed without strong governments but I would expect that you would claim they weren't "nations" so they don't count. Keith

OK, so we can rule out nations. To clarify: No nation or country in the history of mankind has ever successfully adopted a libertarian political philosophy.

I acknowledge that merely because there hasn't been one, it doesn't mean there couldn't be one. But it certainly seems a mighty steep hill that the libertarian has to climb to support their theory. The reason being, is that it is 100% theory, nothing more. There is no practical application that we can measure results from.

It's like seeing communism drawn up on paper the first time. "Looks good, sounds good, let's see it in action, should be super." Then catastrophe...only with libertarianism, I suspect it would be be much worse as chaos would be the law of the land.

I will consider the possibility that some societies may be used as evidence though. What societies are you referring to?

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Tell that to the Irish. For centuries they didn't have a strong government and managed to mostly hold off the Romans and the English, from right next door. In fact, the English still haven't truly "conquered" the Irish. They have a foothold in one corner of the country. And, just take a look at the Iraqi resistance today. The "strong government" does not represent that "insurgency" but are puppets of the US. There is no government truly representing the Iraqi people. But, we're still not winning. Keith

OK, so the Iraqi and Irish societies, are your "exhibits" as evidence for what a "successful libertarian" nation could be like? I want to make sure this is your position before responding.

[Gods_Mercenary]

If you claim that unending wars such as those in Ireland and Iraq are desirable, then I guess you could want the situations in Iraq and Ireland. By the way, Britain at one time completely dominated Ireland, It has only gained some autonomy in recent years.

By the way, what have such societies done to help humanity? raise life expectancy and such.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: notworthabean so now all hisanics are all spanish only speakers? wheres the logic?

no, but most of them speak spanish, and would rather deal with spanish speaking businessmen/teachers/associates, etc.
or are all the new spanish newpapers, magazines, radio and tv stations not something they really want? again thanks for playing

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Apokalupsis OK, so we can rule out nations. To clarify: No nation or country in the history of mankind has ever successfully adopted a libertarian political philosophy. I acknowledge that merely because there hasn't been one, it doesn't mean there couldn't be one. But it certainly seems a mighty steep hill that the libertarian has to climb to support their theory. The reason being, is that it is 100% theory, nothing more. There is no practical application that we can measure results from. It's like seeing communism drawn up on paper the first time. "Looks good, sounds good, let's see it in action, should be super." Then catastrophe...only with libertarianism, I suspect it would be be much worse as chaos would be the law of the land. I will consider the possibility that some societies may be used as evidence though. What societies are you referring to?

Welcome back apok, glad to see you again, really.

Can you tell me the name of a communist state, past or present that isnt run by a psycho, a murderer, tyrant, etc?
that way we can truely see the success or failture of communism. you talk like someone that got all he needed to know about communism from the cold war.