Friday, April 8, 2016

Bob Wallace on the Clueless Advocates of Open Borders

When science comes up with a theory based on observation and reason, teh next step is to test that theory to see if it can predict an outcome. If memory serves, many of the things that Einstein's relativity theory predicted couldn't be tested right away, but when it became possible, what with the space program and other technological advances, they tested the bejeezus out of it. And, I understand, its predictions turned out to be valid.

But non-scientific theories, which I guess we can call "sociopolitical" theories are usually not tested, at least not deliberately or systematically. They are "proven" by shouting down any dissent, and by ignoring the fact that the predictions they make usually aren't valid. The Obamacare theory, for example, is not really being "tested," it's just being put into effect, and its accomplishments are being exaggerated or just made up, and its downsides are being minimized or ignored entirely. The theory stated, in contradiction to all that is known about human nature, that young and healthy people would gladly sign up and pay for health care they don't need, and that would finance the health care for old coots like me who could therefore pay less. They didn't and it isn't.

And now we come to the "Open Borders" theory, which states lots of absurd things. It states, for one thing, that immigrants come here to work and be free. Some do, but others come here not to work at all, but to get the free stuff which we have in abundance. It states that such immigrants will assimilate, which, again, some do, but a great many do not, and don't intend to, either. And it states that these immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in social services, which is bloody nonsense. And it also asserts that immigration is "good for the economy," which is very debatable. It's good for businessmen who want to cut wages, of course, and good for bureaucrats whose jobs depend on having plenty of needy people signing up for more and more welfare. But it's not good for wage earners, who see their wages go down because these immigrants will work cheap, and who see their taxes go up, to pay for freebies for the immigrants, both the ones who work and they ones who don't feel like working.

But if what you like is bigger and bigger government, open borders is the way to go. this is from Bob Wallace's blog, Unca Bob's Treehouse [link]:

Open Borders Means Big Government

I am a small-L libertarian (actually a libertarian nationalist) who does not believe in open borders. Why? Because the only way a country can have open borders is if it has a huge federal government. Right now, we have a huge federal government, so we have open borders. It overrules the states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, families and individuals. In reality this is Forced Integration.
Why does the federal government do this? One reason is that corporations, themselves creations of the state, want cheap workers and have enough political influence to get their way.
Another reason is that there are leftists who just want to destroy the country. Perhaps they think, as all leftists think, that once existing institutions are destroyed all the inherent “goodness” in human nature will pop up and create a utopia. For all practical purposes this is insanity.
I agree with a comment made by the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: leftists don’t merely misunderstand human nature. They don’t understand it at all.
Human nature is terribly flawed, and civilization is a thin film on top of a whole lot of badness. Destroying that thin film doesn’t create a utopia. It creates a hell.
Under a purely libertarian society, all property would be private. Contrary to the belief the borders would be open, the truth is the exact opposite. There would not be mass migration, because the landowners would not stand for it.
Occasionally libertarians tell me, "Well, immigrants would pay to cross the property." Oh, really? Where are millions of poor immigrants going to get the money to pay for such a thing? It also assumes the owners place money above all. The only people I've seen do that are people who don't have any money. People who have money have other priorities.
Do the defenders of open borders think thousands of landowners are going to spend the night wandering around their property with a flashlight (and a shotgun?), catching immigrants and charging them a dollar? And that immigrants are going to carry thousands of dollars in cash, to pay the landowners whose property they have to cross?
I also get the comment (actually a mantra, and a clichéd one at that), "I should be able to hire whom I want." True. But how are those potential hirees going to get there, when they have to cross other's property and the owners won’t let them? 
Do the defenders of open borders really think thousands if not millions of people will allow mass migration across their private property? What sort of bizarre self-deception is that, to believe such a thing?
I’ve been told, “They’ll use the interstate highway system.” The interstates are a creation of the federal government, were first started in 1956 (in St. Charles, Missouri), and the purpose was for the transportation of the federal military.
No federal government, no interstates. And no Eminent Domain (I remember as a child entire neighborhoods demolished to make way for the local interstates).
When I use these points in arguments with open-borders libertarians, I can see the pain in their faces, then their brains shut down. They cannot accept the fact not only does libertarianism not support open borders, it completely opposes them.
If all property is private, there will be no mass immigration. And if all property is private, families and neighborhoods don't want criminal Third Worders in their midst (I know of a Mexican who was arrested for f*cking his dog. He told the cops, "It's my dog.") They want productive, intelligent, non-criminals. Which means whites - and this is why wherever whites go, Third Worlders follow them like dogs begging for scraps.
I have come to the conclusion, distasteful as it is to me, that there will always be government. And I am not so naive as to not understand that governments grow and grow and sooner or later always get out of hand.
The problem, as always, is how to keep government under control. To that, I have no answer. Neither does anyone else. But I know getting rid of government completely is no answer at all. In fact it leads to chaos and always has.
All the open-borders libertarians I've met have come from small towns of less than 50,000 people, ones that are ethnically homogeneous and are low-crime. They've never dealt with stupid, raping, murdering Third Worlders, as I have. 
What am I supposed to think, when libertarians who claim to despise the federal government above all, support policies that can only exist because of that same government? And support their beliefs with every ridiculous excuse they can think of?
Quibcag: The illustration is from the post-apocalyptic anme, Attack on Titan (Japanese進撃の巨人 HepburnShingeki no Kyojinlit."Advancing Giants")


  1. "But non-scientific theories, which I guess we can call "sociopolitical" theories are usually not tested, at least not deliberately or systematically."

    Actually, no. It's not that they're "not tested" ("usually" or otherwise), but rather that they're not theories at all.

    Let me pull from Jeff Glassman's "Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument" (December 2007:

    "Science is all about models of the real world, whether natural (basic science) or manmade (applied science, or technology). These models are not discovered in nature, for nature has no numbers, no coordinate systems, no parameters, no equations, no logic, no predictions, neither linearity nor non-linearity, nor many of the other attributes of science. Models are man’s creations, written in the languages of science: natural language, logic, and mathematics. They are built upon the structure of a specified factual domain."

    All such models are conjectures, abstract explanations devised to explain the how and the why of phenomena observed. They're defined in a rising order of reliability. Again from Dr. Glassman's article:

    "A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts.
    "A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum."

    A speculation without even the minimal support required for a hypothesis is considered a conjecture or a contention. To extend through the level above "theory," "A law is a theory that has received validation in all possible ramifications, and to known levels of accuracy."

    What we observe so much of the time in what "we can call 'sociopolitical' theories" is that they are unreliable because they are intellectually corrupted assertions predicated not upon dispassionate examination by way of scientific method but rather wishful thinking at best, and flagrant fraud - deception knowingly uttered for the purpose of violating innocent parties' rights to their lives, their liberties, and/or their property - more commonly.

  2. You of course picked the one Anime where a Wall as a plot point isn't completely demonized. Even there the Ambition to get outside them.

    Try watching YuriHuma Arashi, I also enjoyed a Eugenie Danglars quote from Episode 3 of Gankustouo.