Peter Hitchens in the Spectator

Snippet below as food for thought (emphasis by Spartacus).  Or whole article here as a banquet for the mind.

The fall of the Berlin Wall worked in two ways. For it freed Europe’s left-wing revolutionaries from several great burdens. No longer were they agents of a menacing foreign power, or apologists for the Gulag, the Red Army and the Kremlin. They were back to the bright, dangerous enthusiasms of the Young Marx, utopian social radicals anxious to begin the world over again, Jacobins much more than they were Leninists. Yet somehow they managed to portray themselves to naive, politically illiterate media folk as a sexier, better-looking version of the Tories.

Well, they were not Tories. I know of at least six members of the Blair cabinet who to this day would prefer not to talk much, if at all, about their days in the ranks of hardline Marxist organisations. People who now go into frenzies about the leftist past of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have always ignored this aspect of New Labour and refuse to see any importance in it.

Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus
Subscribe to the Sparta-Blog at eyamspartacus.wordpress.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Peter Hitchens in the Spectator

  1. H B Bear

    I know of at least six members of the Blair cabinet who to this day would prefer not to talk much, if at all, about their days in the ranks of hardline Marxist organisations.

    In much the same way as a young and naive former Communist typist who became PM of Australia?

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Maybe Peter was thinking of his brother Chris, who started out full-on Marxist but was a righty, or nearly so, by the time of his death. Sometimes it take a whole life to discern what is truth and what were lies.

  3. Iampeter

    Most catsters would oppose the fall of the Berlin Wall because Open BordersKKK.

  4. Tim Neilson

    Most catsters would oppose the fall of the Berlin Wall because Open BordersKKK.

    This is exactly correct!

    Locking someone out of your home is the exact equivalent of imprisoning them!

    You KNOW it makes sense!

  5. Crazyoldranga

    What have Tories got to do with Blair?

  6. manalive

    In the 1940s, shortly before the end of the war, the communist party leader, Harry Pollitt, told a gathering of left-wing undergraduates at Cambridge to get the sort of degrees that would allow them to rise far in the British establishment …

    There were of course Philby, Burgess and Maclean all from British establishment families, all Cambridge and all Soviet spies.
    After Burgess and Maclean defected Philby was able to carry on despite MI5 and CIA deep suspicions, as Ben Macintyre writes ‘MI6 was White’s and MI5 was the Rotary Club’.
    Philby was even considered to head the Soviet section of MI6.

  7. Bruce of Newcastle

    Most catsters would oppose the fall of the Berlin Wall because Open BordersKKK.

    The Trump Wall is designed to keep people out.
    The Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in.
    One is not like the other.

  8. Most catsters would oppose the fall of the Berlin Wall because Open BordersKKK.

    No, no, most Catsters simply believe it is within the purview of a sovereign people to pursue a policy in line with their views, you, like the Marxists, would ignore them.

  9. Pyrmonter

    @Iampeter

    The difference is that the current Katterlaxians would have built the wall around West Berlin themselves, rather than let the Easterners do it. It was, after all, the only way millions of east Europeans might have accessed the West (as about a million or so of them did).

  10. Tel

    Most catsters would oppose the fall of the Berlin Wall because Open BordersKKK.

    Once again you have nothing to back yourself up, so you invent something based on feelings and ignorance.

    The reunification of Germany was the choice of the two property owners on either side of that wall: the East German people and the West German people. Property owners are entitled to invite people onto their land if they so choose to do so.

    If some external group had insisted that either East or West Germany open up their borders then I would be against that imposition from outside… because of property rights.

    Whether those West Germans were quite ready for the tactics of socialists like Merkel is another question, there could by some buyer’s remorse, but they THOUGHT they were ready, and they made the decision.

  11. H B Bear

    In retrospect it may have been better to keep the wall up and Mutti Merkel on the other side of it. The upcoming Eurabian Civil War with the muzzies will be the real test of that thesis.

  12. H B Bear

    Sorta snap there Tel.

  13. Tel

    No, no, most Catsters simply believe it is within the purview of a sovereign people to pursue a policy in line with their views, you, like the Marxists, would ignore them.

    Exactly, it’s the prerogative of the property owner.

    Iampeter doesn’t even understand basic concepts like property rights and ownership. He wouldn’t even pass as a real Randian. All the citizens of Italy are asking for is to be allowed to make their own decisions without being told what to do by supra-national groups like the EU or the UN. That’s all the citizens of any country are asking for when it comes to borders.

  14. Iampeter

    You guys are all saying very similarly incorrect things and it all goes back to the same root problem: you have no working theory of government, you don’t even grasp the concept. A government and its borders is in no way analogous to a private citizen and his proterty. That’s how a complete collectivist, even a communist, would look at it.
    So without having any grasp of the basics your positions on policy issues are that of the far-left without you even realizing it.

    Iampeter doesn’t even understand basic concepts like property rights and ownership.

    You’re the one that thinks the state should be able to regulate who should get to even live where and you think you understand property rights?

    You’re a communist who is too clueless to realize it.

  15. Dear Iampeter

    you have no working theory of government, you don’t even grasp the concept

    You said the same thing about the Williamson post of yesterday. Please educate us.

  16. You guys are all saying very similarly incorrect things and it all goes back to the same root problem: you have no working theory of government, you don’t even grasp the concept. A government and its borders is in no way analogous to a private citizen and his proterty.

    You’ve just asserted the two are not analogous. Try making an argument that shows how the territorial juridiction of Australia is not in the relevant aspect like property owed by Joe Bloggs.

    You’re the one that thinks the state should be able to regulate who should get to even live where and you think you understand property rights?

    No one is saying that the government can tell you where to live, we have argued that foreigners have no right of entry in the normal case. Why lie?

  17. Iampeter

    You said the same thing about the Williamson post of yesterday. Please educate us.

    Well the first thing you need to answer before you get into a specific, technical policy question is what do you think is the function of government and why? Once you have the answer you then apply that consistently to every issue.
    Now if you think the government can regulate who can live where and travel where, then whatever your theory of government is, its not on the side of property rights, without which you can’t be on the side of capitalism and you’re not really on the side of individual rights either. Not consistently anyway. In other words you’re a leftist.

    Those of us who are actually right wing, like me, believe the function of government is to protect your individual rights. Why? Because exercising your rights (thinking and acting) is the only way humans can live and prosper and if we’re going to live among each other then we need a government to protect us from each other. Such a government in practice maintains the courts, police and armed forces and NOTHING else. Such a government would no more regulate immigration or marriage than it would regulate private enterprise of any other kind. This is what it means to be right wing.

    Conservatives today aren’t right wing, they’re unintentional lefties. They are all-round politically illiterate and approach politics with random positions on random issues based on appeals to various types of authority like religion or tradition or nation state or whatever because they have no ideology. It’s a mess but its ultimately collectivist which means leftist.
    So on the issue of immigration, conservatives are advocating the position of unions and early 20th century democrat and labor voters. It’s cool if they have that position, but its not cool if they call themselves anything other than what they are, which is very confused leftists.

  18. Tel

    You’re the one that thinks the state should be able to regulate who should get to even live where and you think you understand property rights?

    Hey bullshitter, link to where I said that.

  19. Dear Iampeter

    Well the first thing you need to answer before you get into a specific, technical policy question is what do you think is the function of government and why? Once you have the answer you then apply that consistently to every issue.

    Your comment warrants a long and detailed reply, for which Spartacus does not have time this evening. Perhaps a more detailed post will follow. However, Spartacus would suggest you first read some history before defining “right wing”. The actual origin of right and left wing goes back to the French revolution and who sat on which side of the king. What you are describing yourself as is an utopian libertarian; a paradoxical combination and a state of government/nature that lives in the dreams of some but not in the reality of anywhere.

    This also goes to the point that Spartacus has written about in the simplistic, binary-linear construct of left vs right does not really work in a modern and complex world.

    But if you were true to your utopian ideals, you would not suggest that “we need a government to protect us from each other“. In the the libertarian-utopia you see, the government would be there to register property (particularly land) and provide courts for the enforcement of contract. The rest would be up to citizens and their guns.

  20. Now if you think the government can regulate who can live where and travel where, then whatever your theory of government is, its not on the side of property rights, without which you can’t be on the side of capitalism and you’re not really on the side of individual rights either

    No one here has argued that the government can tell its citizens where they can live or travel, we’ve argued that a sovereign people is entitled to police its territorial jurisdiction as it sees fit in the normal case, and you’ve provided no reasons that actually contradicts this position. Do you actually have any reasons at all that suggests this is not the case, any at all?

  21. Iampeter

    What you are describing yourself as is an utopian libertarian; a paradoxical combination and a state of government/nature that lives in the dreams of some but not in the reality of anywhere.

    With respect, this is exactly what I’m not describing.
    This is the false alternative that we see everywhere today in which politics seems to be about anarchy vs authoritarianism with the right position being somewhere in the middle, with not too much authoritarianism but not too much freedom either. This is wrong. This is not what politics is about.

    Politics is the science that deals with people living among people. When people live together their most most fundamental alternatives to dealing with each other is freedom or force. Or individualism vs collectivism. Not anarchy or authority. Those are just different types of force not alternatives to each other.

    If “right wing” or “left wing” are to help provide any kind of clarity in political discourse then they need to be used with respect to these actual alternatives and that’s how I use them. In other words to be “right wing” is to be an individualist and to be “left wing” is to be a collectivist.

    There’s an article on exactly this that I always recommend called Political “Left” and “Right” Properly Defined that explains it very clearly IMO.

    In any case, THIS exact conversation is where we need to be in political discourse right now. Without even these basics agreed jumping into specific policies is pretty fruitless.

  22. Iampeter

    Hey bullshitter, link to where I said that.

    Well you don’t support open borders do you? What did you think that meant from a more general political point of view?

    This is what I’m trying to get you to understand: you give very specific positions on very specific issues and when I play them back to you from the point of view of what that means at a general level, you blanche and backpedal.

    That’s why I’m saying that you need to start with the general level and then work your way down to specific issues.

  23. Well you don’t support open borders do you? What did you think that meant from a more general political point of view?

    Rubbish. As I said above: No one is saying that the government can tell you where to live, we have argued that foreigners have no right of entry in the normal case. You are not generalizing a specific position above, you are simply making stuff up because you don’t actually have a reason that contradicts our position. This is now becoming abundantly clear.

  24. With respect, this is exactly what I’m not describing.

    So you’ve read a guy who has read Ayn Rand and say that is not utopian libertarianism. Ok. If you feel that way.

    And by the way, despite what some may call it, politics is not a science.

  25. Tel

    Iampeter, if you lock your front door and do not allow some arbitrary person to come in and make their home in your lounge room (which I presume is what you do, because it’s normal) does that now mean you have decided to “regulate who should get to even live where” ?

  26. Iampeter

    So you’ve read a guy who has read Ayn Rand and say that is not utopian libertarianism. Ok. If you feel that way.

    I’d hope you’d have more than a Fisky-like dismissal of ideas. Rand was neither utopian nor libertarian nor is that what I described in any way.

    And by the way, despite what some may call it, politics is not a science.

    Every human endeavor is a science to those interested in it. I’m sure you’d agree its mighty strange to spend the time to read and post on political blogs but then be dismissive of the suggestion that there is a logical, methodical and scientific way of approaching the subject.

    Tel – no, an individual doing what he wants with his property is his business and has nothing to do with immigration. You do like to keep straw-manning the discussion.
    Immigration is the question of what the government can or can’t do with people and their rights. As someone who thinks the state can regulate immigration, you are someone who thinks the state can regulate who should get to even live where. You can’t then also claim to be on the side of property rights, not with any consistency.

  27. Tel

    Tel – no, an individual doing what he wants with his property is his business and has nothing to do with immigration. You do like to keep straw-manning the discussion.

    It has everything to do with borders. An individual owning property creates a border (in legal and moral terms) around that property. Most individuals choose to put resources into constructing physical borders on their property as well so they can control who enters. That’s a fundamental part of property rights.

    So now that you accept individuals are allowed to lock their doors. What about a club? As I’ve asked already (but you didn’t give a direct answer) suppose you have a private gay club with a bar and a dance floor downstairs and a bunch of hotel rooms upstairs but facilities are only available to club members (and you have to be gay, else you aren’t allowed to join). The club does not allow non-members onto the property but it does allow members to rent a room and stay if they want to. Are you going to also attempt to deprive the club members of their property rights? Are you going to accuse them of attempting to “regulate who should get to even live where” ?

  28. Tim Neilson

    Posted here as well as the other thread, because it applies equally here.

    Every time some shiteater comes up with this bullshit I ask the same question, and never get a straight answer.

    Imagine that there’s a non-citizen who wants to come here, who has a highly infectious disease that’s readily transmissible in an epidemic starting kind of way, is almost invariably fatal, and for which there is no known cure or prophylactic.
    Should the government have the right to refuse that person physical entry into the country?
    If so, on what principle is it so axiomatic that the government shouldn’t have the power to refuse physical entry to some other categories of people (e.g. known mass murdering psychopaths?)
    And if some exceptions to open borders lunacy do exist, who, other than government, should declare what they are?

  29. Tel

    Tim Neilson #2743283,

    You don’t need an imaginary situation, just look at the very real case of MS-13 gang members moving through the “open borders” from Mexico and into the USA then terrorizing people and taking over towns. Their motto is “rape, control, kill” and that’s what they do. At the very least are citizens allowed to keep MS-13 out of their country? Would that little bit of a border be allowed?

  30. Iampeter

    Tel – you’re just restating the same position which has already been addressed so I’ll try a different approach.
    You cannot get what a government should or should not do from what an individual should or should not do as these are apples and oranges. You are resorting to this because you have no theory of government to apply to the issue. An individuals right to discriminate and pick and choose who goes on his property must be protected but a government has no such rights and must treat everyone in its jurisdiction equally within the restrictions placed on it, which ideally should be limited to that of just protecting individual rights. I.e. I can turn people away from my private club but a government can’t turn anyone away from purchasing its services. There’s no comparison between the two.

    Tim – I can imagine there would be situations where there would indeed be an emergency involving known violent criminals or infectious diseases which would require temporary border controls of some kind and be perfectly in line with the rights protecting function of legitimate government. This would be similar to if there is a man-hunt and the police setup road blocks, inspect everyone’s cars, etc.
    But these are unique, non-standard situations, that can be communicated, dealt with and then things return to normal and no longer require these controls.
    Just like we don’t have road blocks everywhere and stop everyone’s car because you never know if there is a murderer inside, so we don’t need this at the borders during the normal course of events.

    Again, your issue is the same as Tel in that you are just having random positions on random issues and no overarching political ideology to apply to the question.

    What that means is you guys are supporting violating peoples rights but you can’t see it because you can’t get your heads out of the weeds of the one specific issue. You have to get politics first and THEN apply it to issues. It doesn’t work the other way around.

  31. You cannot get what a government should or should not do from what an individual should or should not do as these are apples and oranges.

    Not at all. Tel used the simple example of a club, which is not an individual, but an association of individuals because it is in the relevant sense just like a state. So, just as a club or corporation or any other type of association with title to land might exclude non-members from their property, so, too, can a state decide to exclude non-citizens of that state entry to their territorial jurisdiction.

    You are resorting to this because you have no theory of government to apply to the issue. An individuals right to discriminate and pick and choose who goes on his property must be protected but a government has no such rights and must treat everyone in its jurisdiction equally within the restrictions placed on it, which ideally should be limited to that of just protecting individual rights. I.e. I can turn people away from my private club but a government can’t turn anyone away from purchasing its services. There’s no comparison between the two.

    The claim that a government has no rights is just dumb. In just the same manner that a club has rights, or a corporation has rights, or any other association of individuals, in virtue of being free to pursue the legitimate aims of that association, then it is also true to say that a state has rights too. It has, at the very least, the right to deprive the liberty of those individuals that do not respect the rights of others persons.

  32. I can imagine there would be situations where there would indeed be an emergency involving known violent criminals or infectious diseases which would require temporary border controls of some kind and be perfectly in line with the rights protecting function of legitimate government. This would be similar to if there is a man-hunt and the police setup road blocks, inspect everyone’s cars, etc.

    Not similar in the relevant aspect. Foreigners are not members of this polity, but of another polity. Roadblocks may be justified in situations involving the members of the same polity during an emergency only because they have a right of free movement in their polity. But no one has a right of free entry into a territorial jurisdiction of which they are not a member, and, therefore, there is no overarching requirement for emergency situations to deny their entry. In fact, the opposite, emergency situations may provide grounds for their entry if their immediate safety is at risk.

  33. Tel

    I can turn people away from my private club but a government can’t turn anyone away from purchasing its services. There’s no comparison between the two.

    As usual, no direct answer to the question… but I’ll take that as a roundabout “yes” you will allow the club membership to have their property rights. That’s nice of you. Let’s keep going.

    A medium corporation has perhaps 1000 shareholders, and 5000 employees (not exactly the same people, but some overlap) and this corporation owns a large office building and management has decided to impose a strict “employees only” policy on the entire building. Only employees are allowed in the door, no exceptions. So legally the corporation is an entity, not exactly the same as a flash and blood person but with many of the same rights as a person. Would you allow this corporation to have property rights? No different to the club, right? The corporation can own land, and can lock the front door of it’s building to some people, and open the door to others.

  34. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter
    #2743301, posted on June 21, 2018 at 11:57 am

    I’ll give you credit for trying to answer, but your response is totally question-begging. Who decides what’s an emergency? Who decides what types of harm or threat justify so-called “non-standard” controls? Who decides what level of risk of someone being, e.g., a murderer justifies refusing entry?

    Once you admit of such exceptions, you torpedo the whole basis for your absolutism. You’ve admitted that it is a legitimate function of government to refuse admission to the country where the benefit to the existing inhabitants is sufficient to override the supposed “right” of the interloper. You have your views on what’s sufficient, but on what basis must the line be fixed where you want it to be fixed?

    And are you quite sure that your purported distinction between a government and, say, the committee of a very large club, really holds water? If we just declare Australia to be the Antipodean Club, with “membership” defined by reference to criteria bearing a striking resemblance to citizenship criteria, will that assauge your concerns?

    Or conversely, suppose the “government” is an old fashioned mediaeval monarchy where the whole country is the property of the king? Is it all right for the absolute monarch to refuse people entry to his country because “private property”?

  35. Iampeter

    Tel, Dover – what a government should do or not can only be determined by first understanding what a government is. It can’t be determined by what corporations or clubs or whatever other straws you want to grasp at in the absence of understanding politics. Your position on immigration, an issue you cannot even describe, is that of anti-rights/collectivists and therefore leftist, so you’re not on the side of property rights of corporations or clubs anyway.

    Tim – you’re needlessly complicating things because you want to have a leftist immigration position but pretend you’re not a leftist. Yes the gov should restrict and apprehend murderes and rights violators in general, no that doesn’t mean it can just restrict and apprehend just anyone.

    It’s really simple.

  36. Tel, Dover – what a government should do or not can only be determined by first understanding what a government is. It can’t be determined by what corporations or clubs or whatever other straws you want to grasp at in the absence of understanding politics.

    A government is a political association. It is instituted by a group of human being for the maintenance of the peace and order of its members and it usually applies over a territorial jurisdiction which they control. What part of this is unlike a club or corporation exercising control over their own property?

    Your position on immigration, an issue you cannot even describe, is that of anti-rights/collectivists and therefore leftist, so you’re not on the side of property rights of corporations or clubs anyway.

    No, no, immigration is very easy to describe. It is persons, either permitted or not permitted, to enter and settle within a territorial jurisdiction of a polity of which they are not a member. See, very easy. Denying a polity control over its own territorial jurisdiction is simply absurd.

  37. Yes the gov should restrict and apprehend murderes and rights violators in general, no that doesn’t mean it can just restrict and apprehend just anyone.

    No state has the right to apprehend ‘rights-violators’ outside of their territorial jurisdiction. Why is that?

    P.S. You all should notice that Iampeter never wants to complicate, so to say, this matter by ever distinguishing between a citizen and a non-citizen, or this state from that state, and so on, and that is because once you do his argument, such as it is, loses all plausibility.

  38. Iampeter,

    Spartacus is, as he suspects Tim and Tel are, confused as to what your actual position is other than – “that’s not it”.

    You said earlier:

    Those of us who are actually right wing, like me, believe the function of government is to protect your individual rights.

    Well. How does this manifest? And which individual rights do you suggest are worthy of protection? For example, in some cultures it is considered an individual’s right to beat their wives. Please explain also “what a government is” in your “right wing” world. Perhaps this might bridge some chasms for those trying to understand.

    One thing that is also unclear for Spartacus is when you say the role of government is to protect your individual rights, he is not sure who “your” is. Are there nation states in Iampeter’s world or is there simply one world government? And if there are nation states, is it the role and obligation of the government of said nation state to protect the rights of citizens of other states or just its citizens?

    And how would this work if the government of state 1 is oppressing its citizens. Should the government of state 2 be obligated and necessitated to protect the rights of the citizens of state 1 (and in doing so take the property of its citizens to fund the protection of the rights of citizens in state 1)?

    Basically, how does government work in a world designed by Iampeter?

  39. Tim Neilson

    Yes the gov should restrict and apprehend murderes and rights violators in general,

    My primary example was someone seriously ill (though I noted criminals as another example). Who says that someone who’s got a serious illness is a “rights violator” just because they want to be ill in Australia rather than in Shitholistan?

    And along the lines that Dover pointed out, refusing people admission to Australia is very different to “restrict and apprehend” – unless we take the view that locking one’s front door at night is “imprisoning” the rest of humanity.

  40. tgs

    Tel
    #2742649, posted on June 20, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    Great post.

  41. Iampeter

    A government is a political association. It is instituted by a group of human being for the maintenance of the peace and order of its members and it usually applies over a territorial jurisdiction which they control.

    A government is organized force. That’s how it maintains “peace and order” within its jurisdiction and only if the force of government is used for rights protection. If the force of government is used for rights violation then there won’t be any peace and order, it’ll be chaos like we see in Venezuela or NK. A corporation is not force, does not codify laws, does not maintain peace or order and is not law enforecement in any other way. You’re reminding me of anarchist libertarians who also can’t tell the difference between private enterprise and government and so don’t think we need government at all.

    No, no, immigration is very easy to describe. It is persons, either permitted or not permitted, to enter and settle within a territorial jurisdiction of a polity of which they are not a member.

    Immigration is just somebody moving into a house down the street from you. Their point of origin may be outside the jurisdiction of the government that they have moved into, but you won’t know that because its not your business and a right wing, rights protecting government will not know that either because no rights are violated by moving into a house down the street so it has no involvement.
    If you want to regulate immigration based on group that people “belong to” or whatever then fine. I get that position. But what you need to get is that this position makes you a collectivist and therefore a leftist.
    The right wing position on immigration is and always will be open borders.

    P.S. You all should notice that Iampeter never wants to complicate, so to say, this matter by ever distinguishing between a citizen and a non-citizen

    Ofcourse. I’m intentionally avoiding anything that might further confuse the posters here who have no grasp of even basic political concepts like what a “government” is and why its not like corporations. You’re not in a position to sneer at anyone given your embarrassing lack of knowledge on the subject.

  42. Iampeter

    Spartacus is, as he suspects Tim and Tel are, confused as to what your actual position is other than – “that’s not it”.

    How can that be, given that my very first post responding to you explained my actual position? You’re even quoting from it so I know you’ve read it.

    Well. How does this manifest?

    It manifests exactly as I said it does two sentences later where I say such a government in practice maintains the courts, police and armed forces and NOTHING else. Such a government would no more regulate immigration or marriage than it would regulate private enterprise of any other kind. This is what it means to be right wing.
    What’s confusing about that? Do concepts like “police” and “courts” also need to be explained just like the very concept of “government” seems to be unclear in this thread? I don’t mean to sound snide but how else am I to interpret questions like this other than trolling?

    And which individual rights do you suggest are worthy of protection? For example, in some cultures it is considered an individual’s right to beat their wives.

    All rights are protected by a rights protecting government. Also as I mentioned in my post, rights are your freedom to think and act. They are not derived from cultures or personal opinions but from the objective, observable fact that in order to live humans need to think and act and if humans are going to live among each other then their “rights” to think and act must be protected and this is the basis for a rights protecting government. This means you cannot violate the rights of others by either slapping your wives around or stealing from someone or any other inane example that shouldn’t come up in serious political conversations.

    One thing that is also unclear for Spartacus is when you say the role of government is to protect your individual rights, he is not sure who “your” is.

    The people living within that governments jurisdiction as defined by its border.

    Are there nation states in Iampeter’s world or is there simply one world government?

    Who cares? As long as the goverment protects rights it doesn’t matter.

    And if there are nation states, is it the role and obligation of the government of said nation state to protect the rights of citizens of other states or just its citizens?

    Just the people within its jurisdiction.

    Should the government of state 2 be obligated and necessitated to protect the rights of the citizens of state 1 (and in doing so take the property of its citizens to fund the protection of the rights of citizens in state 1)?

    No, why would there be such an obligation? But there would be nothing wrong with destroying rights violating governments either. There is no context in which a rights protecting government would violate the rights of its citizens in order to protect its citizens. This is an obvious contradiction.

    Basically, how does government work in a world designed by Iampeter?

    It would work exactly like today except without all the time and money wasting rights violations that we are all forced to deal with. In other words, we would all liver longer, healthier, happier and wealthier lives.

  43. Myrddin Seren

    Stop me if I am wrong, but I think this is where there is a gap in the borders discussion.

    A lot of us look at ‘open borders’ and say ‘eeek – with Australia’s massive social welfare, government largesse, labour laws etc etc etc, there is so much sugar on the table we would have 500 million people marching in tomorrow !’.

    Peter is saying – all that goes. Everything. No work, and absent private charity – please starve to death quality and in an unobtrusive fashion. Just like the shitholes you are all fleeing from.

    In that world of massively limited government, not only would a country necessarily be less attractive to go to, it would probably shed ( or watch die off ) a bucket-load load of the existing proletariat.

    Makes for an interesting thought experiment – Somalia but with law and order.

  44. Tim Neilson

    A government is organized force. That’s how it maintains “peace and order” within its jurisdiction and only if the force of government is used for rights protection.

    The Melbourne Cricket Club hires security guards who enforce (on the rare occasions it’s necessary) the club’s rules within the Members’ Reserve.
    So the essential difference, for this purpose, between a government and the committee of a “private” club is…..?

    One thing that is also unclear for Spartacus is when you say the role of government is to protect your individual rights, he is not sure who “your” is.

    The people living within that governments jurisdiction as defined by its border.

    Great. So we don’t have to protect the rights of people who are outside our border.

    There is no context in which a rights protecting government would violate the rights of its citizens in order to protect its citizens. This is an obvious contradiction.

    This is absolutely correct. Any government which imposed wartime restrictions would by definition not be a rights protecting government. You KNOW it makes sense!

    Iampeter, a no doubt incomplete list of other specific examples that you haven’t answered is:
    Isn’t a kingdom of an absolute monarch the monarch’s property, so that the absolute monarch can refuse permission to enter his kingdom as much as to refuse permission to enter the palace garden?
    How do you justify refusing permission for a contagious disease sufferer to enter a country, without admitting that a legitimate function of government is to make decisions as to who poses too much of a risk of threat or harm to the existing inhabitants to be let in?

    You’re a living example of the old joke about economists – “well, it works in practice, but will it work in theory?”

  45. Iampeter

    The Melbourne Cricket Club hires security guards who enforce (on the rare occasions it’s necessary) the club’s rules within the Members’ Reserve.
    So the essential difference, for this purpose, between a government and the committee of a “private” club is…..?

    This was predictably because its where hopeless, anarchist libertarians go as well. It’s funny how conservatives critical of libertarians will suddenly embrace their worst talking points when it suits you. This is what not having any principles looks like.

    And no, they are still not the same obviously. Security guards corporations hire do not make laws and exist within the legal environment established by the government.

    Basically the entire thread with you has been an inability on your part to see the difference between law enforcement and private enterprise.

    Iampeter, a no doubt incomplete list of other specific examples that you haven’t answered is:

    No I’m not answering anymore weird, totally confused and inane questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and are just derailing. You need to stop posting and start reading. I strongly recommend the link I posted earlier in this thread as a good starting point.

  46. Iampeter

    You’re a living example of the old joke about economists – “well, it works in practice, but will it work in theory?”

    Oh and I should add, you and your friends are the only ones stuck in theory as you have zero understanding of how the actual world actually works.

  47. Tim Neilson

    Myrddin Seren
    #2743533, posted on June 21, 2018 at 5:06 pm

    Would you rather live in a poverty stricken shithole, or a country with considerable affluence?

    Even without social welfare, a lot of people would try their luck coming here.

    And, rather than starve in the absence of social welfare, they’d resort to crime if they couldn’t get by any other way. Better pickings here than in Shitholistan.

    No amount of official law enforcement will prevent crime. Not even libertarian gun ownership rules can prevent crime.

    The open borders mantra rests on a unicorn and rainbow dust hope that somehow, when the majority of the population have come from Shitholistan because they were in poverty there, Australia won’t end up as a land populated largely by criminals, victims and wealthy residents of gated communities i.e. exactly like Shitholistan.

  48. Iampeter

    In that world of massively limited government, not only would a country necessarily be less attractive to go to, it would probably shed ( or watch die off ) a bucket-load load of the existing proletariat.

    Except no one would die off. In the world I’m describing someone like Malcolm Turnbull would be considered to be in “poverty”.

    But yes, there would be absolutely no attraction to Australia for welfare cheats and layabouts which is what the “anti-immigrant” crowd claims to actually want, but the only way to achieve it is to eliminate the welfare and regulatory state NOT pass even more regulations.

  49. Myrddin Seren

    Tim

    Even without social welfare, a lot of people would try their luck coming here.

    I am not defending the proposition. Too indecisive of me, I think ??

    I just think there is a gap in the discussion that is fueling the debate.

    Or, maybe everyone is enjoying the cut-and-thrust ? In which case, forget the minimalist government thing and go for it on open borders. I am not trying to be a party pooper. Just thought the thought-experiment needed to be expanded, if that is the debate.

  50. Myrddin Seren

    …but the only way to achieve it is to eliminate the welfare and regulatory state NOT pass even more regulations.

    See – this is what I think Peter’s point is.

    Debate:

  51. Ah Iampeter. All is clear now.

    Perhaps you now explain how we reach this place, this utopia, which has never been demonstrated or witnessed on this planet.

    But yes, there would be absolutely no attraction to Australia for welfare cheats and layabouts which is what the “anti-immigrant” crowd claims to actually want, but the only way to achieve it is to eliminate the welfare and regulatory state NOT pass even more regulations.

    Oh really. What would happen if every spot on the earth because a North Korea-Venezuala and they were running to Australia not for welfare, but for escape? And amongst the regulations that would not exist, what about checks for ebola and TB?

    such a government in practice maintains the courts, police and armed forces and NOTHING else. Such a government would no more regulate immigration or marriage than it would regulate private enterprise of any other kind. This is what it means to be right wing.

    buy why have police and courts if there are no regulations? and how do you propose to control the military?

  52. Tim Neilson

    I just think there is a gap in the discussion that is fueling the debate.

    Yes, I agree there’s a gap which you’ve articulated. Didn’t mean to be rude. Sorry.

  53. Myrddin Seren

    Tim

    Didn’t mean to be rude. Sorry.

    No offence taken. Had a good seven days or so bridging gaps in understanding in various professional settings. Thought I would try my luck again in the crucible that is The Cat 🙂

  54. Tim Neilson

    And no, they are still not the same obviously. Security guards corporations hire do not make laws and exist within the legal environment established by the government.

    Poor old Iampeter, still hopelessly confused. Yes, “private” security guards don’t make laws. Just like police don’t make laws. Both of them enforce rules – rules made by the democratically elected elected committee of the club, or by the democratically elected legislature of the nation, the state, or the municipality.

    What’s the essential difference, for the philosophical purpose of analysing the right to enforce entry restrictions, between the MCC and the Commonwealth of Australia?
    “Oh, but one of them is “private” and the other is “government”” isn’t an answer – it’s just argument by label.
    Each of them is a creature of the legal framework operating in this geographical area (e.g. the Constitution and inherited legal characteristics of government institutions, or State statutes in the other case). The authority of each of them is limited by that legal framework (e.g. the Commonwealth can’t go beyond its Constitutional powers – yes I know that’s largely theoretical nowadays, but not entirely so. The Commonwealth occasionally loses a court case for ultra vires acts.)
    One is labelled “government” and the other is labelled a “private” club. But is there a real difference? They each exercise authority under the law (yes, even the Commonwealth – why do you think Constitutional cases go to the High Court?). They each make rules. And they each enforce rules.

    Iampeter, a no doubt incomplete list of other specific examples that you haven’t answered is:

    No I’m not answering anymore weird, totally confused and inane questions that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and are just derailing.

    QED
    The moment Iampeter is asked to explain how his absolutist statements apply to a specific situation – ones which do exist (or have existed) in the real world, he either:
    (a) blathers; or
    (b) claims that his critics are ignorant and that that excuses him from having to provide any sort of logically coherent basis for his position.

  55. Iampeter

    Ah Iampeter. All is clear now.

    Well high fives and ass slaps all round. 🙂

    Perhaps you now explain how we reach this place, this utopia, which has never been demonstrated or witnessed on this planet.

    What do you mean? Everything that works today is a consequence of the extent to which we have rights protecting government and everything that doesn’t work, pretty much all our issues, are a consequence of the extent to which we have rights violating government. None of this is utopian or even theoretical, its black and white, cause and affect. This is literally how the world works.
    To get to there from here all we need is more rights protecting and less rights violating government. A good first step would be to read and understand what I’ve said and linked and then spread the good word.

    Oh really. What would happen if every spot on the earth because a North Korea-Venezuala and they were running to Australia not for welfare, but for escape? And amongst the regulations that would not exist, what about checks for ebola and TB?

    We’d be the richest and most prosperous and populous country on earth. Good.
    But this is kinda like asking “what would happen if the sun blew up”? If you’re only hangup is impossible, context-less non-examples then you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.

    buy why have police and courts if there are no regulations? and how do you propose to control the military?

    To do their ACTUAL job which is to enforce RIGHTS PROTECTING LAWS. Arrest murderers and thieves, protect property, enforce contracts, etc. Are you really so far gone that you can’t even conceive of a government doing things other than defrauding its citizens? Is minimizing authoritarians and grafters really the best you can think of to achieve out of politics? Sadness.
    The military would be controlled exactly as today. But it would have more money and be a better motivated fighting force because a country like this every man woman and dog will want to defend to the death.

  56. JC

    But yes, there would be absolutely no attraction to Australia for welfare cheats and layabouts which is what the “anti-immigrant” crowd claims to actually want, but the only way to achieve it is to eliminate the welfare and regulatory state NOT pass even more regulations.

    Okay, go ahead Pete, eliminate the welfare state and then I’m okay with open borders with some qualifications such as reducing the risk (impossible to eliminate) ISIS murderers coming here.

    That noted authoritarian, Milton Friedman, made the observation that you can’t have a welfare state and open borders. But what would he know when we have Zero Hedge alumnus, Iampeter here to set us straight and even set Milton Friedman straight.

  57. Tim Neilson

    But it would have more money and be a better motivated fighting force because a country like this every man woman and dog will want to defend to the death.

    Defend it from what? If a million Muslim males of military age show up at the border of Germany, all they seem to have to do is not have made a formal declaration of war and not be dressed in combat gear, and the military is superfluous.

  58. A government is organized force. That’s how it maintains “peace and order” within its jurisdiction and only if the force of government is used for rights protection. If the force of government is used for rights violation then there won’t be any peace and order, it’ll be chaos like we see in Venezuela or NK. A corporation is not force, does not codify laws, does not maintain peace or order and is not law enforecement in any other way.

    No one is arguing that a club or corporation performs the same political functions as a state, we are saying that just as a club can enforce its own rules over their own property a state also can enforce its own rules over its own territorial jurisdiction.

    Immigration is just somebody moving into a house down the street from you. Their point of origin may be outside the jurisdiction of the government that they have moved into, but you won’t know that because its not your business and a right wing, rights protecting government will not know that either because no rights are violated by moving into a house down the street so it has no involvement.
    If you want to regulate immigration based on group that people “belong to” or whatever then fine. I get that position. But what you need to get is that this position makes you a collectivist and therefore a leftist.
    The right wing position on immigration is and always will be open borders.

    It may not be my business but it is certainly within the purview of the state. The state is perfectly entitled to prevent that person seeking entry given whatever rules and policy that polity has chosen in the interests of peace and order. This is no more ‘collectivist’ than a club enforcing its rules on members or refusing entry to non-members.

  59. Iampeter

    No one is arguing that a club or corporation performs the same political functions as a state, we are saying that just as a club can enforce its own rules over their own property a state also can enforce its own rules over its own territorial jurisdiction.

    I know that’s what you’re saying but what I’m saying is you exactly cannot conclude “as a club can enforce its own rules over their own property a state also can enforce its own rules over its own territorial jurisdiction” because they are not analogous.
    A government is force.
    A corporation is private enterprise.
    Apples and oranges.

    The only way to determine what a government should do is to get a political ideology.

    It may not be my business but it is certainly within the purview of the state. The state is perfectly entitled to prevent that person seeking entry given whatever rules and policy that polity has chosen in the interests of peace and order. This is no more ‘collectivist’ than a club enforcing its rules on members or refusing entry to non-members.

    A club refusing entry for whatever reason is an exercise of individual rights.
    The government refusing entry to the country for any reason other than rights protection is a violation of individual rights.

    These are not the same things.

    The argument “government can restrict immigration because private enterprise can, we’re not rights violating leftists” is rock-bottom, political illiteracy.

  60. Mark A

    Iampeter
    #2743731, posted on June 21, 2018 at 8:26 pm

    A club refusing entry for whatever reason is an exercise of individual rights.

    The government refusing entry to the country for any reason other than rights protection is a violation of individual rights.

    Rubbish, the government is acting on our behalf as individuals, we simply transferred our right to refuse entry to those we don’t want.

  61. Iampeter

    Rubbish, the government is acting on our behalf as individuals, we simply transferred our right to refuse entry to those we don’t want.

    What is the role of government?
    As a right winger I think the role of government is protecting rights which means only rights violations can be illegal and the act of immigration is not a rights violation and so should not be illegal.

    You need a political ideology not random “government represents people” or “we transfer our right to refuse entry” etc.
    No amount of talking will make the government anything other than exactly what it is.

    You guys should discover what it is.

  62. Mark A

    Iampeter
    #2743735, posted on June 21, 2018 at 8:34 pm

    You are talking rubbish.
    What is the role of gov. if not representing the will of the people?

    the fact that it sometimes oppresses some individual “rights” stems from that very fact.
    You keep saying that it’s everyone’s right to migrate or move wherever they want, and I say it’s my right as a citizen of this place to say “No you can’t come in”.

    But as an individual I can’t enforce it, I need the gov. to do it on my behalf.

    We have been through it a thousand times, you can’t convince us and we certainly can’t convince you.
    Best to give it a rest.

  63. I know that’s what you’re saying but what I’m saying is you exactly cannot conclude “as a club can enforce its own rules over their own property a state also can enforce its own rules over its own territorial jurisdiction” because they are not analogous.
    A government is force.
    A corporation is private enterprise.
    Apples and oranges.

    If I walk on to the private property of a corporation against their will they can eject me by force just as I can be removed by the state by force if I am neither a citizen nor a VISA holder. There is no difference in the relevant aspect.

    A club refusing entry for whatever reason is an exercise of individual rights.
    The government refusing entry to the country for any reason other than rights protection is a violation of individual rights.

    A club is not an individual. It is an association of individuals in the same manner as a state.

    You need to stop begging the question and actually present an argument.

  64. Iampeter

    Dover you’re making me laugh so hard.
    All I’ve done is provide an argument and even patiently explained how you should approach thinking about the question of politics and apply it to issues as you guys have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
    And all you’ve done is literally beg the question which you also don’t understand, just like you don’t understand anything else in this thread.

    E.g. the phrase “we are saying that just as a club can enforce its own rules over their own property a state also can enforce its own rules over its own territorial jurisdiction” IS begging the question.

    For something to not be begging the question you have to be able to explain WHY.
    In order to explain WHY a gov is like a club you would have to know WHAT a gov is.
    And you’re issue all thread as I’ve been saying over and over, is that none of you have a clear position on WHAT the gov is.

    Just stop. This is embarrassing.

  65. E.g. the phrase “we are saying that just as a club can enforce its own rules over their own property a state also can enforce its own rules over its own territorial jurisdiction” IS begging the question.

    What question is being begged above? All I’ve done is say that just as a state is an association of human beings, like a club, that it also enjoys the same powers of a club to manage property under its control in the interests of its members. Do you not accept that a state is an association of human beings? Do you not accept that a state has legal authority over its territorial jurisdiction?
    Now, to get back to your question-begging, you’ve not explained why a state cannot exclude non-members from its territorial jurisdiction. You’ve already accepted that the free movement of human beings is qualified by private property, and you’ve accepted that movement between states is qualified by the condition and character of the human being seeking entry, so it appears to me you’ve conceded to the state and its polity the authority to police its borders for the maintenance of peace and order. All that you are now disputing is the extent of this authority, and you are doing this badly.

  66. For something to not be begging the question you have to be able to explain WHY.

    Begging the question means assuming what is in dispute. So, if we were disputing what government is, begging the question would mean assuming that it was organized force, or force, as you do.

    In order to explain WHY a gov is like a club you would have to know WHAT a gov is.
    And you’re issue all thread as I’ve been saying over and over, is that none of you have a clear position on WHAT the gov is.

    I have a very clear position of what a government is, but since I don’t want to be accused of begging the question, I’ll begin with the state. A state is an association of human beings, typically, of a group of human beings in geographical proximity to one another, share the same or similar cultural background, and are governed by the same set of customs and laws. This association of human beings typically acknowledges an office/s where decisions are made (executive), deliberations occur and laws are enacted, amended, or repealed (legislature), and disputed (judiciary). The government is typically whoever has control of the executive and legislative office and is charged with the maintenance of the peace and order of its territorial jurisdiction by means that are not in conflict with the laws and customs of its people.

    By analogy, a state is like a club, the government is like the club’s committee, and the people are like a club’s membership. A government is perfectly entitled to manage its territorial jurisdiction, including the refusal of entry to foreigners for the peace and order of its people, just as a club’s committee is entitled to refuse entry to non-members to its premises in the interests of club members. You haven’t in any non-question-begging way laid a glove on this analogy. You need to put up or shut up. Either way works fine for me.

  67. Iampeter

    What question is being begged above?

    The question of whether a government can kick people off its territory because a corporation can kick people of its property. No, it can’t. Nor can questions of what a gov can or can’t do be determined by what organizations can or can’t do. There is no analogy to be had here.
    I’m just repeating myself at this point but for the millionth time: you have to first have a political ideology, THEN establish a government THEN you’ll have corporations that can or can’t do things depending on your politics and government. You cannot do it in reverse. You cannot determine what a government should or should not do based on what corporations do, which itself is determined by what the government can do, which needed to be established first.
    You just have it all backwards because as I keep saying and you keep refusing to acknowledge, you just have random positions on random issues that you can’t defend with political arguments so have to grasp at random straws instead.

    All that you are now disputing is the extent of this authority, and you are doing this badly.

    No I’m not. I’m trying to explain to you that the “authority” of government is not analogous to the “authority” of corporations and that you cannot determine what a gov should do from what corporations do. A gov serves a specific, singular function in society which in turn determines how the rest of society functions. It doesn’t work in reverse. At this point you are basically making the same hopeless arguments of libertarian anarchists.

    By analogy, a state is like a club, the government is like the club’s committee, and the people are like a club’s membership

    No, there is no analogy between any private enterprise and government for the purpose of determining what a government should do. What a government should do can only be determined by a political ideology without which all your left with is straw-grasping. We should ban immigrants because…um…because…well I can ban people from my house! Yea that works!
    No, I’m sorry, that is not a political argument on your part, but it is the position that leftists hold because it is anti-rights.

    You need to put up or shut up. Either way works fine for me.

    As usual all I’ve done is put up and all you’ve done is played your usual semantic games because you don’t know what politics is or how to discuss it, just random preconceived positions that you will clutch to the very end because you have nothing else.

  68. This is just comical now. I never said that we can understand the functions of government merely by looking at those of a corporation or club. No, what I said is that they are all types of association, they are different in part because they have different purposes, but, in order to pursue those purposes they have similar features like an office of some sort where decisions and deliberations occur, and an apparatus of power annexed to this office that has the capacity to pursue these purposes. With a state the office typically involves an executive and a legislature, and these offices have control over a geographical territory via its apparatus of power (bureaucracy, police, armed forces, and the like). Now, you’ve already admitted that the state can enforce laws that are rights-preserving over their territorial jurisdiction. Further, you’ve admitted that a state can also exclude persons with infectious diseases or those who have bad character (felons, known criminals, etc.) Having admitted as much you have already conceded to the state authority to police its territorial jurisdiction on behalf of its citizens for the peace and order of their country. Therefore, you’ve admitted that there is no unqualified right to travel as one pleases from one territorial jurisdiction to another without the express permission of the relevant state whose territory you wish to enter. And it really is a prudential question who may or may not be excluded in order to preserve the peace and order of a country.

  69. Iampeter

    Now, you’ve already admitted that the state can enforce laws that are rights-preserving over their territorial jurisdiction. Further, you’ve admitted that a state can also exclude persons with infectious diseases or those who have bad character (felons, known criminals, etc.) Having admitted as much you have already conceded to the state authority to police its territorial jurisdiction on behalf of its citizens for the peace and order of their country.

    Correct.

    Therefore, you’ve admitted that there is no unqualified right to travel as one pleases from one territorial jurisdiction to another without the express permission of the relevant state

    Incorrect. Exact opposite is the case.
    A rights protecting government can only restrict access in the case of rights violations (eg known felon) NOT in any other circumstance.

    And it really is a prudential question who may or may not be excluded in order to preserve the peace and order of a country.

    Peace and order can only be maintained by rights protecting government not by random, collectivist, rights violations like immigration control.

  70. tgs

    You know that old saying that goes something like, ‘If you meet one asshole then they’re probably just an asshole. If everyone you meet is an asshole then you’re the asshole’?

    Well, if literally everyone you meet doesn’t “have a working theory of government” and can’t comprehend your political science genius…

  71. Here is the argument in syllogistic form:
    1. A state is a type of association
    2. A state is an association of people within defined geographical limits.
    3. These geographical limits are called a state’s territorial jurisdiction
    4. All types of association have purposes.
    5. The purpose of a state is the maintenance of the peace and order of a people within its territorial limits.
    6. The peace and order of a people may be threatened by people beyond its territorial limits (foreigners) traveling or settling within those limits.
    7. Therefore, a purpose of the state is policing who may enter from without those territorial limits for the peace and order of its people within those limits.
    Which premise, 1-6, do you dispute? I’m going to assume you dispute the conclusion, 7.

  72. tgs

    Oooh wait, I have a better one.

    “If you meet one leftist then they’re probably just a leftist. If literally everyone you meet is a leftist then you’re Iampeter and no one else has a working theory of government.”

  73. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    You will have more luck arguing with pigeons at train stations than talking to the austist Iampeter.

  74. Incorrect. Exact opposite is the case.
    A rights protecting government can only restrict access in the case of rights violations (eg known felon) NOT in any other circumstance.

    Firstly, no, it cannot be incorrect, or the exact opposite, if you admit, as you did twice above, that a government can exclude known felons because that is a qualification of the purported unqualified right of free movement between territorial jurisdictions.

    Peace and order can only be maintained by rights protecting government not by random, collectivist, rights violations like immigration control.

    More question-begging. Moreover, you cannot check if people are known felons without immigration control, or whether they ‘re attempting to enter the country while suffering from an infectious disease, or with a noxious weed or bacteria/virus that may infect our produce and livestock.

  75. Iampeter

    Tgs – yes I hear you and your point is not lost on me. All I’ll say is that is not the case here. In fact most of human history has been one or two people who know the first thing about what they are talking about and thinking for themselves facing down the screaming mindless mob.
    Don’t be part of the mindless mob. Think for yourself.

    Which premise, 1-6, do you dispute? I’m going to assume you dispute the conclusion, 7.

    Yes because what you describe will lead to North Korea or Venezuelean outcomes. Why would you stop at territorial limits? Without a clear definition of “peace and order” like I have (rights protecting government) then every aspect of our lives will have to be regulated on this basis not just at the border.
    To be clear, I understand if this is what you are advocating for but then what you need to understand is that you are a pretty serious leftist.

  76. Just tell us which premises you are disputing.

  77. Respectfully Iampeter. I stopped reading 2 days ago, but happened to catch this last exchange.

    All I’ll say is that is not the case here. In fact most of human history has been one or two people who know the first thing about what they are talking about and thinking for themselves facing down the screaming mindless mob.

    Yes. And through most of human history there have also been people who have heard voices in their heads and who have also found followers to lead to oblivion. Voices in their head, follower or prophet? Ockham’s razor anyone.

  78. Iampeter

    Well Spartacus, I’m pretty sure if I was wrong you guys could just, you know, prove me wrong.
    But instead you guys play the man and engage in mock confusion. Even you haven’t made a single argument or disagreed with anything I’ve said, just asked mocking questions that shouldn’t have to be explained to people seriously interested in this topic.
    The cat needs to decide if its a political blog or a parody, populated by politically illiterate leftists who have nothing but weak ad hominems when faced with people who actually know what they are talking about, that you will yourselves just cry about if I were to turn it up.

  79. Well Spartacus, I’m pretty sure if I was wrong you guys could just, you know, prove me wrong.

    We have, multiple times. It’s why you’re avoiding the syllogism above.

  80. if I was wrong you guys could just, you know, prove me wrong.

    This is just a matter of perspective. A number of posters believe they have whereas you disagree.

    Subjective non falsifiability perhaps?

  81. Iampeter. Spartacus is not sure how we ventured down this rabbit whole, but your working theory of government is just that. Theory. It has never existed anywhere and never likely will.

    To quote Kevin Williamson quoting Jonah Goldberg quoting Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard and Gert Tinggaard Svendsen’s excellent 2003 Public Choice essay “Rational Bandits:

    The “rational bandit” thesis expands on Murray Rothbard’s argument that all states have their origin in plunder and conquest. (It was William the Conquerer, not William the Politician.) At some point, the bandit figures out that he is better off leaving the villagers alive and able to continue producing whatever it is the bandit is inclined to take from them, rather than massacring them all and burning their seed corn. Eventually, plunder becomes tribute and tribute becomes taxation, and the bandit learns that his interests are best served by protecting his subjects from other rival bandits. “Predictability and non-violent extortion are preferable to anarchy and violent extortion every time,” Goldberg writes. In other words, the bandit decides that people are a resource.

  82. .

    At least we agree that the historical basis of government was simply thuggery.

  83. At least we agree that the historical basis of government was simply thuggery.

    And remains to this day.

  84. Tel

    No, there is no analogy between any private enterprise and government for the purpose of determining what a government should do. What a government should do can only be determined by a political ideology without which all your left with is straw-grasping.

    That’s garbage. Government action might be determined by political ideology, or by pragmatism, or by total incompetence, or by the sway of some powerful personality (like Trump for example) or by some combination of all the above.

    But the first rule of any property rights is that overall decisions must be somehow determined by the citizens themselves, and not by imposed outside influence. Otherwise the citizens have lost sovereignty and their country belongs to someone else (this is known as losing a war). This is no different in a household, or a club, or a business, or a city state, or a nation state. This includes the ability to decide who uses the property and how.

    We should ban immigrants because…um…because…well I can ban people from my house! Yea that works!

    That’s dishonest, as has been repeated many times, the only thing anyone asserted was the basic property rights to be allowed to have a border and determine who enters the country. No one said all immigrants should be banned, in practice some will be allowed and some will not, which is normal for a household, and for a club, and for a business office.

    You are a serial bullshitter. That’s your only argument is to be dishonest about other people’s position… name calling, smear, and crap crap crap. Exactly like the leftists. Exactly like them.

    Your “rights protecting government” is meaningless unless you can explain who decides where these “rights” come from and who has a responsibility to protect those rights. If the citizens of a country decide they only want certain people in their country (based on whatever criteria they can come up with) that’s their property rights, and a “rights protecting government” would therefore work to achieve what the citizens want. Trouble is, you want to define “rights protecting government” to mean some arbitrary rights you came up with and you don’t happen to consider borders to be part of that. Well, others disagree, too bad.

  85. Iampeter

    This is just a matter of perspective. A number of posters believe they have whereas you disagree.

    Subjective non falsifiability perhaps?

    Sorry, but no.
    No one in this thread, not even you, have been able to even put forward a political theory, make a political argument or apparently even understand what the defining characteristic of a “government” is.
    Dover is now onto “syllogisms” and soon will probably be cutting up chickens to interpret their entrails.
    Anything but politics on a political blog it seems.

    No honest reader will have any problem sorting out what’s what in this thread.

  86. egg_

    7. Therefore, a purpose of the state is policing who may enter from without those territorial limits for the peace and order of its people within those limits.

    Much of the EU has obviously reached saturation point with ME arrivals.

  87. No honest reader will have any problem sorting out what’s what in this thread.

    Agreed.

  88. JC

    Peter accuses others of ad hom, but very single one of his laughable comments is laced with ad homs, putdowns and low rent condescension.. His only argument that I can is this.

    I know more than you and don’t have to show any argument to assert this because I believe I am superior.

    What a fucking idiot.

    His understanding of economics is just appalling pretty much repeating what he last read on Zero Hedge. People should just ignore the dipstick.

  89. As predicted, Iampeter doesn’t want to say whether he accepts this or that premise in the interest of developing some common ground that would allow further clarification, but just wants to spout this preferred ideology which no one is under any obligation to accept for the sake of the argument.

    No honest reader will have any problem sorting out what’s what in this thread.

    Which means so far as Iampeter is concerned: There have been many readers of this thread but as of yet no honest readers because no one has yet agreed with me.

  90. JC

    Anything but politics on a political blog it seems.

    It’s not just a politics blog, but also an economics one. He left out the last point because of the shambles of his last economics discussion with me. Of course he said he was right, because that’s all he does. What cretin.

  91. JC

    You’re wasting your time, Dover.

  92. Tel

    At least we agree that the historical basis of government was simply thuggery.

    Dot you only tell half the story there. Historically people have tried building government on all sorts of things, including pacifism. Over the years many of those got weeded out, and what remains are the governments that are thuggish enough to get themselves paid, but also offer some protection in return for that. In other words, organized stand-over operations.

    That’s not because everyone loves thuggish government, it’s because if you want to keep property you must also have a way of defending said property.

  93. Protecting your property, whether undertaken by yourself or the government via law, is a legitimate undertaking. There is nothing standoverish about it.

  94. struth

    I won’t read Iampeter but he doesn’t get democracy.
    Like all anarchists and extreme “libertarians” they are basically scared individuals that see government as an uncontrolled monster coming to get them.
    Controlling the monster with democracy requires borders, and no borders equals no democracy, which is the only way to control government.
    The alternative is of course totalitarianism/authoritarianism that is instantly there once democracy is gone.
    Seeing the whole world will never be a democracy, we need to keep our borders well up.
    It’s common sense these guys are incapable of comprehending because they read a book by an economics academic.

  95. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    One True Scotsman is an asshole.

  96. JC

    The first paras of the Declaration of Independence sounds like a great start to explain the meaning of government.

  97. Tel

    Dover you can use the old words: Protection Racket, Police Force, Prisons, Defence Force, Tax Collector.

    Or if you enjoy dressing up the pig with a little lipstick, use the new language: Public Service, Police Service, Correctional Service, National Defense Service, and Revenue Service.

    Always willing to serve! Hey, how about some fishnet stockings on that? This pig could come out looking kinda nice…

    The problem we have on our hands is that government thinks of itself as something MORE than a protection racket, and therefore stops trying to do a good job of protecting property, keeping the law simple, and instead it starts with the SJW activity. But we do run a democracy, government didn’t just get this idea into their heads, we had a referendum back in 1946 where they added “Social Service” to the list of newspeak servile words and Australians voted for free stuff. They were asked, and that’s what they wanted. The citizens are sovereign, they can choose to change that if it doesn’t seem to be working. We can see how that plays out I suppose.

    Not many people vote for small government (presumably they don’t want small government), although they did vote for Abbott when he offered to balance the budget, but that was taken away by untrustworthy representatives, so perhaps the citizens aren’t entirely sovereign. This too could be changed if enough people wanted to change.

  98. Tel

    Controlling the monster with democracy requires borders, and no borders equals no democracy, which is the only way to control government.

    You can also have a Monarch if you happen to find a good one. We could invite the Lee family, they have form.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.