This one isn’t as great as most of the others, and probably isn’t nearly as big a reason for minarchism than #6 was. I think that most of the people who think this way are the same people who want a larger than minimal government.
Have you finished all 10, and put them in order? Or are you making these up as you go?
@SnowDog
I just looked through all the comments caught by Spam Karma and found a couple by Frake and restored them. If your spam was caught by Bad Behavior then it means you did something odd technically to post it that made it seem you were a bot. I’m not sure what the problem is but I’ll try to find out.
Dr. Q-
“Not that I support minarchy, but this is a straw man. Radical minarchists are opposed to restricted “immigration.””
I haven’t found that to be the case. “We need a government to secure the borders” is one of the most common minarchist refrains. Not that all of those who believe that think it’s because of “brown people,” but that’s certainly a common complaint, unfortunately…
I found my lost comments under #6 cause for Minarchy.
I’m confused as to how your topics are arranged. The “#6 Cause for Minarchy” used to be on the front page at anarchyinyourhead.com, a couple of days ago. Now, the only way I can find, to get to it, is to go to the #5 Cause for Minarchy, and hit the “Previous” button underneath.
I’m not sure what you’re confused about. The latest comic is always on the front page and you can go through them chronologically with the previous and next buttons or the arrows. You can also use the search if you know words from the title or you can click on the keywords in the tag cloud to try to find some. “Minarchy” is a keyword.
Mainshark wrote: ‘I haven’t found that to be the case. “We need a government to secure the borders” is one of the most common minarchist refrains. Not that all of those who believe that think it’s because of “brown people,” but that’s certainly a common complaint, unfortunately…’
Maybe amongst LP morons (did you read the LP’s article after the swine flu “outbreak?”), but actual radical minarchists tend to be against restrictions on “immigration.”
Dalebert, this comic is a disgrace especially next to a lot of your other comics. You are doing nothing but playing the race card in order to obscure the real issue.
There would be a lot more acceptance in this society of illegal Mexicans if the welfare system which many of them sponge off of did not exist. The problem is that the Mexicans that hop the border continue to vote for welfare statist politicians in order to keep that system going. Luckily though the socialists are starting to run out of other people’s money, which is shown by the dire state of the national budget as well as many state budgets, so the system is hopefully not going to last much longer, and is already starting to come to a stop in one of its biggest strongholds, California, as I mentioned on FTL.
Playing the race card is not going to help you, Dale, it is only going to further anger and divide people. We need to create an America where everyone who wants to work hard can come here, regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., but there will be no welfare system to sponge off of for anyone, so those people regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., who want to sponge off of a welfare system can just move to Europe or something.
Sorry, this “we have to get rid of welfare first” business is just another racist obfuscation. The logical conclusion of this argument would be to advocate tossing every native welfare recipient over the border where they would no longer receive welfare.
Since we know he does not make this logical step, anyone taking this stance is simply racist. He believes that people born on this plot of land are deserving of receiving stolen resources, while others born on a different plot of land are not. Do not let them hide behind the cloak of equality “just so long as we end welfare first”.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I hold the truth that all men are created equal as self evident, no matter where they are born. If one person gets to be the beneficiary of theft, then let all men so benefit.
I’m against welfare for both native and illegal alien recipients, a point I made clear in my prior comment.
“We need to create an America where everyone who wants to work hard can come here, regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., but there will be no welfare system to sponge off of for anyone, so those people regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., who want to sponge off of a welfare system can just move to Europe or something.”
I pointed out that the reason why many Americans are resentful of immigrants is because so many of them come here for the express purpose of sponging off of the welfare system and receiving other free government goodies. Some of them do this of their own volition, some of them are helped along by the fact that various Latin American governments are trying to export their nations’ poverty problems here to the United States.
I did not advocate tossing native welfare recipients over the border. I advocated, as I’ve always advocated, ending the welfare system entirely in the United States for everyone.
“If one person gets to be the beneficiary of theft, then let all men so benefit.”
Wrong. It is immoral to willingly become the beneficiary of theft, no matter if “everyone else is doing it”.
Luke, that’s such a load of shit. The huge vast majority of them come here to work their asses off. Most of them are paying into social security and taxes and get little to none of the benefits that locals get. People here just feel entitled and don’t want to compete for jobs just like many existing businesses love all the barriers to entry that government creates that keep them from having to compete. And in both cases, these things benefit a few at the cost of most.
I hate the welfare state, but I am smart enough to realize that it’s the problem and not immigrants who come over and contribute to our economy.
I agree that the welfare state is the problem, but I have heard the concerns of people who live in the Southwest over the years, and I listen to them even though I don’t personally live in the Southwest. I don’t know what percentage of illegal immigrants sponge off of welfare and what percentage actually contribute to the economy, and neither do you, but I feel like it would be callous to turn a deaf ear to the many Southwesterners who actually live in the middle of where most of the immigration is taking place who are concerned that many are coming here just to sponge off of welfare. That the usual race-hustlers as well as you immediately cry “racism” at these people raises even more red flags in my head, because after having been around in this life for awhile I’ve found that people who cry “racism” are usually doing it not because they want to correct actual injustice, but because they want something out of somebody.
You criticize the government over having an “anarchy boogeyman” which they stick out at everyone to get them to continue to accept government, out of fear of what will happen under anarchy. Now I am criticizing you for jumping upon the bandwagon of the “racism boogeyman” which is all too prevalent in this PC-obsessed society.
Currently we are seeing a concerted attempt to rollback the welfare state within society. This has been begun by the right-wing in the name of “freedom,” “individual dignity and responsibility” and “efficiency.” The position of anarchists to this process is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of reducing the size of the state and increasing individual responsibility and freedom, but, on the other, we are well aware that this process is part of an attack on the working class and tends to increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state’s (direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a dilemma — or, at least, apparently.
So what attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state and the current attacks on it?
Admin note:
I’ve shortened this for now. Let’s not post entire articles in the comments. Just post an excerpt and a link. It’s just not the place for the full text of articles. Please feel free to post a link to this article and I’ll attach it to this excerpt.
“Maybe amongst LP morons (did you read the LP’s article after the swine flu “outbreak?”), but actual radical minarchists tend to be against restrictions on “immigration.” ”
I don’t hang out with many LP members, and I don’t read their articles.
“Defend the borders” is generally the last thing I’ve heard minarchists fall back to, even after convincing them that there can be private roads, and such. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard, “everything else can be anarchy, but we need a government to defend the borders, or folks outside will come in and destroy our system!”
So, I guess everyone agrees that restricting the movement of workers is akin to restricting the movement of goods – either restriction blocks (true) Free Trade.
“Sorry, this “we have to get rid of welfare first” business is just another racist obfuscation. The logical conclusion of this argument would be to advocate tossing every native welfare recipient over the border where they would no longer receive welfare.”
That’s logical to you? Have you ever tried using Occam’s Razor, instead of Rube Goldberg’s Electric Shaver? To me the logical answer is “end welfare for everybody.” (Oh, look — the original statement was “Get rid of welfare first.” I bet that’s where I remember hearing that answer.)
“Since we know he does not make this logical step, anyone taking this stance is simply racist.”
I just wanted to point out where Dale might have gotten the idea that there are minarchists out there who are anti-immigration but otherwise anti-state.
There was apparently a bit of a stink in the libertarian community when Lew Rockwell advocated Hans Hermann Hoppe’s idea of using the market to justify the restriction of movement (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html). I’m not really sure what to make of it, but I think it’s safe to say that anti-immigration is a reason some people choose minarchy over anarchy.
This one isn’t as great as most of the others, and probably isn’t nearly as big a reason for minarchism than #6 was. I think that most of the people who think this way are the same people who want a larger than minimal government.
Have you finished all 10, and put them in order? Or are you making these up as you go?
Anyways, good series.
Brown people are scary.
Swing and a miss.
Not that I support minarchy, but this is a straw man. Radical minarchists are opposed to restricted “immigration.”
Luigi, NO!!!!!!!!!
Dale, what’s up? Some of my comments are missing…
Dude, I would so go to a palce called Taco Latte.
@SnowDog
I just looked through all the comments caught by Spam Karma and found a couple by Frake and restored them. If your spam was caught by Bad Behavior then it means you did something odd technically to post it that made it seem you were a bot. I’m not sure what the problem is but I’ll try to find out.
And I think it’s one of the best
really funny.
I’m kinda brown. I guess I’m only half scary.
http://www.youtube.com/user/freestatereport
You look like MEXICAN ! You are double scary !
DD
Dr. Q-
“Not that I support minarchy, but this is a straw man. Radical minarchists are opposed to restricted “immigration.””
I haven’t found that to be the case. “We need a government to secure the borders” is one of the most common minarchist refrains. Not that all of those who believe that think it’s because of “brown people,” but that’s certainly a common complaint, unfortunately…
I found my lost comments under #6 cause for Minarchy.
I’m confused as to how your topics are arranged. The “#6 Cause for Minarchy” used to be on the front page at anarchyinyourhead.com, a couple of days ago. Now, the only way I can find, to get to it, is to go to the #5 Cause for Minarchy, and hit the “Previous” button underneath.
I’m not sure what you’re confused about. The latest comic is always on the front page and you can go through them chronologically with the previous and next buttons or the arrows. You can also use the search if you know words from the title or you can click on the keywords in the tag cloud to try to find some. “Minarchy” is a keyword.
Mainshark wrote: ‘I haven’t found that to be the case. “We need a government to secure the borders” is one of the most common minarchist refrains. Not that all of those who believe that think it’s because of “brown people,” but that’s certainly a common complaint, unfortunately…’
Maybe amongst LP morons (did you read the LP’s article after the swine flu “outbreak?”), but actual radical minarchists tend to be against restrictions on “immigration.”
Dalebert, this comic is a disgrace especially next to a lot of your other comics. You are doing nothing but playing the race card in order to obscure the real issue.
There would be a lot more acceptance in this society of illegal Mexicans if the welfare system which many of them sponge off of did not exist. The problem is that the Mexicans that hop the border continue to vote for welfare statist politicians in order to keep that system going. Luckily though the socialists are starting to run out of other people’s money, which is shown by the dire state of the national budget as well as many state budgets, so the system is hopefully not going to last much longer, and is already starting to come to a stop in one of its biggest strongholds, California, as I mentioned on FTL.
Playing the race card is not going to help you, Dale, it is only going to further anger and divide people. We need to create an America where everyone who wants to work hard can come here, regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., but there will be no welfare system to sponge off of for anyone, so those people regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., who want to sponge off of a welfare system can just move to Europe or something.
Sorry, this “we have to get rid of welfare first” business is just another racist obfuscation. The logical conclusion of this argument would be to advocate tossing every native welfare recipient over the border where they would no longer receive welfare.
Since we know he does not make this logical step, anyone taking this stance is simply racist. He believes that people born on this plot of land are deserving of receiving stolen resources, while others born on a different plot of land are not. Do not let them hide behind the cloak of equality “just so long as we end welfare first”.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I hold the truth that all men are created equal as self evident, no matter where they are born. If one person gets to be the beneficiary of theft, then let all men so benefit.
I’m against welfare for both native and illegal alien recipients, a point I made clear in my prior comment.
“We need to create an America where everyone who wants to work hard can come here, regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., but there will be no welfare system to sponge off of for anyone, so those people regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, etc., who want to sponge off of a welfare system can just move to Europe or something.”
I pointed out that the reason why many Americans are resentful of immigrants is because so many of them come here for the express purpose of sponging off of the welfare system and receiving other free government goodies. Some of them do this of their own volition, some of them are helped along by the fact that various Latin American governments are trying to export their nations’ poverty problems here to the United States.
I did not advocate tossing native welfare recipients over the border. I advocated, as I’ve always advocated, ending the welfare system entirely in the United States for everyone.
“If one person gets to be the beneficiary of theft, then let all men so benefit.”
Wrong. It is immoral to willingly become the beneficiary of theft, no matter if “everyone else is doing it”.
Luke, that’s such a load of shit. The huge vast majority of them come here to work their asses off. Most of them are paying into social security and taxes and get little to none of the benefits that locals get. People here just feel entitled and don’t want to compete for jobs just like many existing businesses love all the barriers to entry that government creates that keep them from having to compete. And in both cases, these things benefit a few at the cost of most.
I hate the welfare state, but I am smart enough to realize that it’s the problem and not immigrants who come over and contribute to our economy.
I agree that the welfare state is the problem, but I have heard the concerns of people who live in the Southwest over the years, and I listen to them even though I don’t personally live in the Southwest. I don’t know what percentage of illegal immigrants sponge off of welfare and what percentage actually contribute to the economy, and neither do you, but I feel like it would be callous to turn a deaf ear to the many Southwesterners who actually live in the middle of where most of the immigration is taking place who are concerned that many are coming here just to sponge off of welfare. That the usual race-hustlers as well as you immediately cry “racism” at these people raises even more red flags in my head, because after having been around in this life for awhile I’ve found that people who cry “racism” are usually doing it not because they want to correct actual injustice, but because they want something out of somebody.
You criticize the government over having an “anarchy boogeyman” which they stick out at everyone to get them to continue to accept government, out of fear of what will happen under anarchy. Now I am criticizing you for jumping upon the bandwagon of the “racism boogeyman” which is all too prevalent in this PC-obsessed society.
Currently we are seeing a concerted attempt to rollback the welfare state within society. This has been begun by the right-wing in the name of “freedom,” “individual dignity and responsibility” and “efficiency.” The position of anarchists to this process is mixed. On the one hand, we are all in favour of reducing the size of the state and increasing individual responsibility and freedom, but, on the other, we are well aware that this process is part of an attack on the working class and tends to increase the power of the capitalists over us as the state’s (direct) influence is reduced. Thus anarchists appear to be on the horns of a dilemma — or, at least, apparently.
So what attitude do anarchists take to the welfare state and the current attacks on it?
Admin note:
I’ve shortened this for now. Let’s not post entire articles in the comments. Just post an excerpt and a link. It’s just not the place for the full text of articles. Please feel free to post a link to this article and I’ll attach it to this excerpt.
Andrew-
“Maybe amongst LP morons (did you read the LP’s article after the swine flu “outbreak?”), but actual radical minarchists tend to be against restrictions on “immigration.” ”
I don’t hang out with many LP members, and I don’t read their articles.
“Defend the borders” is generally the last thing I’ve heard minarchists fall back to, even after convincing them that there can be private roads, and such. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard, “everything else can be anarchy, but we need a government to defend the borders, or folks outside will come in and destroy our system!”
So, I guess everyone agrees that restricting the movement of workers is akin to restricting the movement of goods – either restriction blocks (true) Free Trade.
“Sorry, this “we have to get rid of welfare first” business is just another racist obfuscation. The logical conclusion of this argument would be to advocate tossing every native welfare recipient over the border where they would no longer receive welfare.”
That’s logical to you? Have you ever tried using Occam’s Razor, instead of Rube Goldberg’s Electric Shaver? To me the logical answer is “end welfare for everybody.” (Oh, look — the original statement was “Get rid of welfare first.” I bet that’s where I remember hearing that answer.)
“Since we know he does not make this logical step, anyone taking this stance is simply racist.”
Or they understand “logic” better than you do.
I just wanted to point out where Dale might have gotten the idea that there are minarchists out there who are anti-immigration but otherwise anti-state.
There was apparently a bit of a stink in the libertarian community when Lew Rockwell advocated Hans Hermann Hoppe’s idea of using the market to justify the restriction of movement (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html). I’m not really sure what to make of it, but I think it’s safe to say that anti-immigration is a reason some people choose minarchy over anarchy.
Mmm, taco lattes!