Subject: Hit a Nerve -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, Wow, did I ever hit a nerve with some people with that last e-mail, about the bogus concept of "illegal immigration." A few people even unsubscribed, which I always find interesting: at what point does someone not want to HEAR opposing views? And why? Anyway, just in case I wasn't clear enough, I'll jam the knife into that nerve again, in a more detailed manner. Let's use a specific scenario, instead of sloshing around vague generalities: Juan is an American citizen (of Mexican ancestry) who lives in El Paso, and owns a restaurant. His cousin, Carlos, lives just across the river, in Mexico. Juan wants Carlos to come live in his big house, and work at his restaurant. Carlos wants that too. Question: Do you personally have the right to take a gun, go to Juan's house, and tell Carlos that he CANNOT live in that house, and CANNOT work in that restaurant? Answer the question, at least to yourself, before you continue. Once again, you can hide behind various "authority" mythology, like "Constitutions" and "laws," but what it comes down to in reality is that if you forcibly chased Carlos away, YOU are the one initiating violence; YOU are the one oppressing someone who has done nothing to harm you or anyone else; YOU are the bad guy. And if you ask someone ELSE to do the thuggery for you (like "government"), you are still the bad guy. If you want to disagree with me, I welcome your comments, though I make one request: prefaced your criticisms with a specific ANSWER to the above question: Do YOU, yourself, without any assistance of the cult of "authority" or "law," have the right to forcibly evict Carlos? Interestingly, those who think it's okay to use violence to keep people from crossing the invisible line--including most of the people who wrote e-mails to me disagreeing with my last message-- like to CHANGE the question, to try to justify their position. "They come here and rob us!" Oh, really? Every one of them? Robbing you is a crime, and you have the right to use force to stop someone from doing that (and the right to hire someone else to do it). If by "rob" us you mean accepting "government" goodies, that's bad too, but no worse than the millions of Americans who do it. But what if, like the hypothetical Carlos above, the person just wants to come earn a living? Then what excuse is there for forcibly stopping him? Trouble is, real freedom can be really inconvenient, because it means letting OTHER people be free, too. For example, it would be rather inconvenient for me (and lots of you) if a thousand non- English-speaking Mexicans moved into my neighborhood. I wouldn't understand them, couldn't communicate with them, I would have very little in common with most of them, and would probably have very different political, religious, and other beliefs than they do. Does that give me the right to FORCIBLY keep those people out? Nope. In response to my last message, a couple people used the bogus logic that is often used to try to defend drug prohibition: if you don't want it forcibly combatted, you must LIKE it. That does not follow. I think that frying your brain repeatedly is a really bad idea. But I have no right to use FORCE to prevent you from doing so. In case you're wondering, I've never used narcotics, or even alcohol, so this isn't just a case of me wanting to be allow to get wasted--it's a matter of principle. The same is true of "immigration" issues: I wouldn't want my neighborhood overrun with people completely unlike me, but I have no right to FORCIBLY stop them from buying property here, or getting a job here. Incidentally, a few people tried to blame my "extremist" view on the "immigration" thing to my own treatment at the hands of "government," or my imprisonment. I hate to deprive anyone of their easy excuse to get out of thinking about things, but I have believed this for years. As ALL of my "political" (or anti- political) beliefs, it's simply a logical deduction based on the radical idea that every individual owns himself, and no one owns anybody else. So many political discussions hide the stark reality under piles of euphemisms, rhetoric, and authoritarian-speak. (The ultimate intellectual cop-out is, "But it's the law!" So? ANYTHING can be made into "law." That doesn't make it right.) When the indoctrination and thought-mangling is stripped away, and the plain truth is stated, it scares the heck out of people. While I got a few rational disagreements in response to my last message, I got a lot more emotional tantrums. Why? Because I took the discussion in a direction they didn't WANT to think about. So let's state in clear, literal terms what the two "sides" of the discussion are advocating: 1) Some advocate that violence be used to stop people from crossing an imaginary line, or to send people back over that imaginary line, based upon where those people were born, and upon whether they have the permission of politicians to cross that line. 2) Some (including me) say that such force is unjustified. So, would YOU feel justified, without any authoritarian intellectual crutches to hide behind ("law," "authority," etc.), in pulling a gun on the single mother and her two-year-old son who just waded across a river to try to escape the political and economic mess of Mexico? If you would do that, then at least you can consistently advocate that "government" do it. If not, then you're being hypocritical, and using the myth of "authority" to do things you know to be wrong. And don't try the over-generalization and/or guilt-by-association excuse. "A lot of them come over and commit crimes, and rob us, and murder us!" So do Americans, but you won't hear anyone saying that we should ALL be deported because we fit in a statistical category that includes some bad people. If individual people commit actual crimes--the kinds with victims, not the made-up "legislative" kind-- then using force to stop them is justified. But you don't have the right to use violence against someone because you theorize that they MIGHT do something bad if you don't. (Think how much you protest when those in "government" treat YOU as "guilty until proven innocent.") I prefer to be around people like me (all two of them). Almost everyone prefers to be with their own kind, though their "kind" doesn't necessarily mean their race: it can mean a religion, a cultural background, a philosophical outlook, etc. In every major city, you can see that a LOT of people engage in voluntary segregation. People are more comfortable when they live among like- minded people, and there's nothing particularly evil about that. And THAT is the tendency which politicians exploit via the "immigration" debate. They want Americans to have the attitude that this huge piece of dirt (defined by an absolutely arbitrary line) is "OUR" country, and that those dang foreigners don't BELONG here. (Never mind that if you go back a few generations, 99% of us are "foreigners.") The fear--whether real or not--of your town being overrun by people NOT LIKE YOU is used as a tool to get you to support "government" power, via "immigration law." But, like EVERY "problem"--real or imagined--which "government" pretends to fight against, those in power have NO intention of fixing anything. They merely milk the problem for all it's worth, to get YOU to give them power. And a LOT of Americans fall for it, just as they fall for the tyrants' fear-mongering about poverty, and health care, and terrorism, and every other problem imaginable. Sadly, most pro-freedom people even fall back on insisting that "we NEED government to do THIS thing..." And so the precedent is set: if the people are convinced that authoritarian control, and a corresponding loss of individual freedom, is "necessary," then it's okay. Of course, ANY increase in state power can be--and will be-- deemed "necessary" by those who seek the power. As a result, once we accept one INCH of the idea that "government" violence is legitimate where it's really "needed," we're on a one-way road to totalitarianism. If, on the other hand, we take the "extreme" view that either YOU AND I have the right and responsibility to fix a problem, or NO ONE does, then freedom survives. Once you let ANY problem--real or imagined--scare you into surrendering your complete self-ownership over to some tyrant masquerading as a savior, then you have lost the only principle that matters, and when YOU find yourself at the receiving end of some fascist's "necessary" oppression, you will have no right to complain. Sincerely, Larken Rose www.larkenrose.com (P.S. I oppose every politician's side of every dispute, as their own power is ALWAYS their main--if not their only--priority. So don't go trying to stick me in a political camp. The tyrants who want "amnesty" for "illegals" want it so they can get more people here to vote for them, and more people to tax. The other tyrants want to scare the heck out of you, and get elected by promising to combat "illegal" immigration. Whatever your personal opinions, if you think ANY politician has YOUR interests at heart, you need to wake up.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkbHkx4ACgkQGmVFo/iGj33zwgQAsR9zowrki/B7d23PuCHZ2fOBGAVp N6LFR2AP5ogypteD5gwYlnJ7Knl8qx5rLj0+QFmPEM8datbHrHZApI7LsBLSCzm0yPFg Epb1IyK7C0BIIWqaGEXTCDxB4WuL1fM91VfbCLvtf+JkcgXKi87Yw4QIAoT14XMNqbq6 tmCs+5w= =L0cC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Need cash? Click to get an emergency loan, bad credit ok http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4dQDLJtBuWpsf2mACQQeieA6iaYlPsbJ7qlwC0wstYGJpiGY/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe, send a blank message to tmds-on@mail-list.com To contact the list owner, send your message to tmds-list-owner@mail-list.com