"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
- Robert Heinlein
I would prefer you as my neighbour over any altruist.
This country is filled with persons who have college degrees but no learning -certainly not in logic (it's illegal immigration -stupid!). They who enact laws to which they are unaffected, and then virtue signal about it.
Those people were defeated in the voting box.
As a Catholic I'm bracing myself for bishops who are about to howl at the moon over deportations. They said nothing about the influx and deaths due to fentanyl, nothing about human trafficking at the border, nothing about the gangs and murder, nothing about Joe Biden being the most pro abortion president ever. They should stay silent now, but they probably won't. That's because the lack of flow of immigration will cause them to have to face life without government monies and stolen sheep to replace those who left after not being cared for. Things are going to get tough and gone are the days when a gay man might aspire to be a bishop, I hope.
The next time a liberal looks to debate you when it comes to illegal immigration, simply tell them that you will give an illegal their address so that they can live with them. The look on their face is classic. My wife immigrated to the United States from Italy, and we went through the proper channels for her permanent green card (10 years), and now she is about to become a U.S. Citizen. Tears came streaming down from her face when she was notified about her eligibility to become a U.S. citizen.
You can’t argue logic with people who think emotionally. They’re stunted or lazy intellectually. Public education worked just the way they wanted it to….
The Christian argument is particularly infuriating, as the Vatican just a week ago increased penalties for illegal entry to 4 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.
The word you're looking for in ancient Greek would be 'oikophilic'. Meaning 'preference for one's home' or 'preference for what is local and home-spun'.
Well argued Doc! I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about "Democracy and the need for a Bill of Rights". The two concepts seem to me to be intimately connected and it is a discussion that used to be understood but sadly is no longer.
As a neighbour to your north - you know - the 51st state - I once had a job looking at large infrastructure projects from a regulatory perspective and, during meetings and hearings, I refused to offer the obligatory mea culpa over "land". Fortunately I was far enough up the food chain that I could off-load this loathsome and ahistoric chore to someone else. If we would only read the 11 or 12 treaties signed between the Crown and the Indigenous nations (treaties insisted upon by the wise and forward looking leadership of those nations I hasten to add) perhaps we would understand the significance of words like "cede" and "surrender".
I love your writing for its clarity and directness. Thank you for being an island of sanity in an ocean of stupid. Perhaps the island will start to grow in a new political landscape. Not a moment too soon if it does.
One of the original arguments against a Bill of Rights was that removed the force from idea of limited powers defined in the Constitution. Once you start with the what the government allows, you give it, in the end, tyrannical power.
I've heard the argument made that "we" need these people to compete on the international stage, I.e. the sports team metaphor (or if we are being honest indentured slave labour but I digress).
Who are we to deprive these struggling countries of generation after generation of doctors, programmers, and rocket scientists? How very selfish of us!
Seriously though, these same people who make that argument turn around and then say these brilliant immigrants can't do what they do in thier home country but they can only succeed in the west/US.
Spot the logical incoherence/smell the sulphur yet?
We need these people to compete against other nations, but they cannot compete from their home countries??? Uhm, yeah.
I for one, am happy to let them fail in thier home country. Is that racist? Maybe, but guess what, I don't care.
I too have this argument. We need them because they are talented. That just means Zimbabwe/India/Hong Kong becomes even poorer because they now have fewer nurses, doctors and engineers etc.
We know these are emotional arguments. The end game for liberalism. We can't go there and civilize them anymore, so they bring them here to demonstrate their generosity. It is all backhanded racism; the liberals have absolutely no conviction they can succeed in their own nations. It is all so tiresome. Still, the ethnic wars should be fairly lively.
These jagoffs don't get the moral high ground in this argument. You don't get to permanently alter someone's home without their consent and then claim you're the fuggin good guy. Good lord I hate shitlibs
Thanks Briggs for the common sense clarification of 'superior.' Time for superior, merit, and exceptional to return as the drivers of mankind's progress. The global health crisis of 'liberal mental disorder' is being aggressively treated now without the W.H.O.
"I want it because I want it." is all the argument any person needs, whether 2 years old or 90.
No one can be 'forced' into justifying their wants.
However any intelligent person realises that the fact you want something does not mean you are gong to get it.
The problem arises when you need/want to convince some other person that they should want the same thing or to permit you to have the thing/situation that you want.
Unfortunately (or not) history has shown that the only certain way to get what you want or to retain something that you already have, is actual violence and/or the threat of violence.
The libertarian ideal of shopping for government requires PRICES. Allowing people to freely change countries is akin to freely picking up items off the shelf at the local Walgren's. The Founding Uncles risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to build a country for their posterity. (No point in taking such risks just for yourself. Bad ROI!)
We should charge admission. Admit only those willing to pay to be an American. That's how you get super Americans vs. colonizers.
What about taking none at all? You are full. A country isn't a geographical territory, it is a people. That's why Australia looks like Britain and not Aboriginaland. If you bring in different people, paying or otherwise, it changes. Most of the world is populated by people supremely indifferent to individual liberty, free speech, the rule of law etc etc.
Persuasion is useful. The argument I made is in libertarian terms. If you aren't dealing with a libertarian there are other arguments to make. For example, for environmentalists, point out that open borders are not compatible with Ecotopia. The culture which restrains its birthrate gets overrun by the culture which doesn't know how to use a rubber.
For hippie peaceniks, point out that with open borders, the problems of other countries become our problems. Open borders require imperialism.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
- Robert Heinlein
I would prefer you as my neighbour over any altruist.
'It’s better to say I’m my-own-people-ophilic (is there a Greek word for this?).'
Oikophile?
Great article
This country is filled with persons who have college degrees but no learning -certainly not in logic (it's illegal immigration -stupid!). They who enact laws to which they are unaffected, and then virtue signal about it.
Those people were defeated in the voting box.
As a Catholic I'm bracing myself for bishops who are about to howl at the moon over deportations. They said nothing about the influx and deaths due to fentanyl, nothing about human trafficking at the border, nothing about the gangs and murder, nothing about Joe Biden being the most pro abortion president ever. They should stay silent now, but they probably won't. That's because the lack of flow of immigration will cause them to have to face life without government monies and stolen sheep to replace those who left after not being cared for. Things are going to get tough and gone are the days when a gay man might aspire to be a bishop, I hope.
The next time a liberal looks to debate you when it comes to illegal immigration, simply tell them that you will give an illegal their address so that they can live with them. The look on their face is classic. My wife immigrated to the United States from Italy, and we went through the proper channels for her permanent green card (10 years), and now she is about to become a U.S. Citizen. Tears came streaming down from her face when she was notified about her eligibility to become a U.S. citizen.
You can’t argue logic with people who think emotionally. They’re stunted or lazy intellectually. Public education worked just the way they wanted it to….
The Christian argument is particularly infuriating, as the Vatican just a week ago increased penalties for illegal entry to 4 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.
The word you're looking for in ancient Greek would be 'oikophilic'. Meaning 'preference for one's home' or 'preference for what is local and home-spun'.
Well argued Doc! I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about "Democracy and the need for a Bill of Rights". The two concepts seem to me to be intimately connected and it is a discussion that used to be understood but sadly is no longer.
As a neighbour to your north - you know - the 51st state - I once had a job looking at large infrastructure projects from a regulatory perspective and, during meetings and hearings, I refused to offer the obligatory mea culpa over "land". Fortunately I was far enough up the food chain that I could off-load this loathsome and ahistoric chore to someone else. If we would only read the 11 or 12 treaties signed between the Crown and the Indigenous nations (treaties insisted upon by the wise and forward looking leadership of those nations I hasten to add) perhaps we would understand the significance of words like "cede" and "surrender".
I love your writing for its clarity and directness. Thank you for being an island of sanity in an ocean of stupid. Perhaps the island will start to grow in a new political landscape. Not a moment too soon if it does.
One of the original arguments against a Bill of Rights was that removed the force from idea of limited powers defined in the Constitution. Once you start with the what the government allows, you give it, in the end, tyrannical power.
I've heard the argument made that "we" need these people to compete on the international stage, I.e. the sports team metaphor (or if we are being honest indentured slave labour but I digress).
Who are we to deprive these struggling countries of generation after generation of doctors, programmers, and rocket scientists? How very selfish of us!
Seriously though, these same people who make that argument turn around and then say these brilliant immigrants can't do what they do in thier home country but they can only succeed in the west/US.
Spot the logical incoherence/smell the sulphur yet?
We need these people to compete against other nations, but they cannot compete from their home countries??? Uhm, yeah.
I for one, am happy to let them fail in thier home country. Is that racist? Maybe, but guess what, I don't care.
I too have this argument. We need them because they are talented. That just means Zimbabwe/India/Hong Kong becomes even poorer because they now have fewer nurses, doctors and engineers etc.
We know these are emotional arguments. The end game for liberalism. We can't go there and civilize them anymore, so they bring them here to demonstrate their generosity. It is all backhanded racism; the liberals have absolutely no conviction they can succeed in their own nations. It is all so tiresome. Still, the ethnic wars should be fairly lively.
These jagoffs don't get the moral high ground in this argument. You don't get to permanently alter someone's home without their consent and then claim you're the fuggin good guy. Good lord I hate shitlibs
"My argument is I don’t want them. This is my home, not theirs, and they are not welcome.
That is all the argument I need."
I agree with this.
Thanks Briggs for the common sense clarification of 'superior.' Time for superior, merit, and exceptional to return as the drivers of mankind's progress. The global health crisis of 'liberal mental disorder' is being aggressively treated now without the W.H.O.
If I could give this post a hundred ‘likes’, I would. Well done, Mr. Briggs!
There's a reason for sayings such as.
Birds of a feather flock together
Human nature innit...
"I want it because I want it." is all the argument any person needs, whether 2 years old or 90.
No one can be 'forced' into justifying their wants.
However any intelligent person realises that the fact you want something does not mean you are gong to get it.
The problem arises when you need/want to convince some other person that they should want the same thing or to permit you to have the thing/situation that you want.
Unfortunately (or not) history has shown that the only certain way to get what you want or to retain something that you already have, is actual violence and/or the threat of violence.
Ce la vie!
The libertarian ideal of shopping for government requires PRICES. Allowing people to freely change countries is akin to freely picking up items off the shelf at the local Walgren's. The Founding Uncles risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to build a country for their posterity. (No point in taking such risks just for yourself. Bad ROI!)
We should charge admission. Admit only those willing to pay to be an American. That's how you get super Americans vs. colonizers.
What about taking none at all? You are full. A country isn't a geographical territory, it is a people. That's why Australia looks like Britain and not Aboriginaland. If you bring in different people, paying or otherwise, it changes. Most of the world is populated by people supremely indifferent to individual liberty, free speech, the rule of law etc etc.
Persuasion is useful. The argument I made is in libertarian terms. If you aren't dealing with a libertarian there are other arguments to make. For example, for environmentalists, point out that open borders are not compatible with Ecotopia. The culture which restrains its birthrate gets overrun by the culture which doesn't know how to use a rubber.
For hippie peaceniks, point out that with open borders, the problems of other countries become our problems. Open borders require imperialism.
And so on.
Good point. You do get further arguing on their ground than your own.
I view it all as brainwashing. Only Western nations even consider it.
The brainwashing happened. Difficult to reverse in a timely fashion. Ergo, the need for polemical judo.
Yes, I see your point. Well made.