You are here

Velvet Invasion


Vox illustrates one reason he’s not a libertarian:

For example, consider open borders. That seemingly libertarian position is actually anti-freedom, as there would be nothing to stop China from sending 30 million Chinese to the UK and 55 million to the USA, gaining voting rights, then voting to sign a treaty of surrender to the Chinese government.

Equal to any other primary duty of a political body is the duty to defend itself from competing political bodies. Weak states get eaten.


Immigrants are not immediately entitled to citizenship. 

Sending slaves to a free nation is roughly the equivalent of setting them free. 

Why would 30m chinese that suddenly tasted freedom deliberatly chose to re-enslave

themselves ?

The sole obligation of a state is the protection of its citizens from violence. 

Whether it is the violence one citizens inflicts on another or one nation attempts to inflict

on another.

Libertarians are not pascifists, the right to self defence is inextricable from libertarian

philosophy. They just do not beleive in starting wars.  

This post is just more of this idiotic libertarians are weak pascifists of isolationists crap. 


At the peak of the Civil war Federal Spending was approximately 8% of GDP. 

Was Lincoln's union a "weak state" because his wartime government was less than half

our current government ?

Even that bastion of libertarianism - the world bank has discovered that for each 10% 

increase in government spending growth in GDP declines by 1%. With a few scandanavian

outliers this is robust accros all nations in the wolrd and down to total government spending

of 22% of GDP - there is very little data from nations spenfing less than 22% of GDP so we do not know where the real sweet spot is. But it is certainly less than half of what we are spending now. 

The populist definition of libertarian is fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. 


Conservatives owe the entirety of their fiscal philosophy to libertarians. 

despite lunatics attacks on libertarianism by some conservatives there is a tremendos 

common ground.  








Vox did include the step “gaining citizenship”. It doesn’t strike me as a fantastic notion, as the Progressives that run the FedGov are ever eager to hand out voting rights.

What would matter most is whether the Chinese immigrants became American in mindset and culture, or if they remained Chinese while living in the United States. Again, the Progs and their sacred diversity would encourage the Chinese to remain Chinese. At some point, they could then be motivated for a political union with the land and people of their heritage.

I agree that libertarians are not pacifists, and are often unfairly characterized as so. Yet, our Founders’ experience under the Articles of Confederation show the inherent weakness in a liberarian/voluntaryist national defense. Nobody wants to pay the army, even as they want it to protect them.

Whatever the spending statistics, weak states get eaten. Even the vaunted Icelandic tribes had to appeal to outside help and were thereby subjugated.

A state without borders is no state at all.

I disagree.

First of all, the concept of 'sending' large numbers of potential citizens anywhere is extreme and absurd.  We can do reductio ad absurdum all day long on everything we teach, and find flaws with what we believe.

It would be impossible for these numbers to be sent over and even harder still for all of them to 'become citizens' in any fashion.  Furthermore, it does not take into account the probability that, once here, many of those 55 million would find they actually enjoy what the USA has to offer.


How do we know this?  Simply look at the illegal alien situation as it exists today.  Many, I am sure, would LOVE to return to their home countries.  They are more comfortable there.  But they also LOVE what they get here in the USA, and many are clamoring to become citizens simply because they WANT to give back to the country which has provided them opportunity.  I know this because (I'm sure someone will get angry at this) I've hired them.  I've hired them because they do good work, do it responsibly, and do it for a reasonable wage (higher than minimum, lower than most local contractors who seek to bleed people in my community).


I've spoken with them.  I know what they think and how they live (sometimes 10 to a room in order to save money and send it home to their families - something our ancestors did when the Indians considered Europeans 'illegal'.

In the end, there is no reason to not have open borders, but strict rules and laws regarding behavior while here and strict rules and laws about becoming a citizen.  We should seek to invite more people to enjoy the freedoms we offer (though not offer them the 'free stuff' we provide citizens - something the Dems have made damn sure they get anyway) and give them the opportunity to become legitimate.


It would make us stronger as a nation, rather than weaken us by spending money chasing ghosts.