 |
| Cows protected by borders |
Many of my readers lean heavily "conservative" when it comes to "borders". I understand their reasons, even as I reject them on ethical grounds.
But I'm not unreasonable and I'm willing to compromise with them. In fact, I'm offering the borderists a better compromise than I've been offering the anti-gun bigots.
If you can find a realistic way to have the "national borders" you crave without:
- violating the property rights of people (through "taxation") to fund, enforce, and manage the "border",
- without violating the property rights of those who live along that "border",
- without violating the right of association,
- without complicating trade or travel for Americans, and
- without delaying or inconveniencing Americans crossing the "border" in either direction
...then I'll support your efforts in a lukewarm way. I'd rather not single out Americans like I did in those points-- that's why my support would only be lukewarm, but that's my compromise point. Give me more and my support would be stronger.
Until you can do that at a minimum, no deal. Anything else is unethical and I can't support it no matter how "necessary" you claim it is and no matter how you try to justify it.
the choice is between unrestricted gangs, and slightly moderated gangs (state goons). the moderation is slight, and varies over time and place and cultures; but in many instances is a necessary evil because of the much worse certainty of the unrestricted gangs.
ReplyDeleteboth types are cartels abusive violent thieves.
but historically, to improve chance of survival, when geographic separation is not possible- most prefer the slightly moderated gangs.
hence, city/states and borders.
mexican cartels are unrestricted.
new mexico goons are moderate in comparison, and provide benefits that should be acknowledged. they are goons, to be sure; and demand Danegeld. but are moderated in comparison. and because the goons are worse elsewhere- you choose the moderated goons, over all the other alternatives available on the planet.
philosophically "impure".
but a survival tactic.
Daniel Boone - when he could see the smoke from another chimney, felt himself too crowded, and moved further out into the wilderness.
Deletehe was philosophically "pure".
there is no place on earth left to live "pure".
currently, it's a choice of bad vs worse vs much worse.
to survive, people choose borders and Danegeld.
because every other alternative is worse.
There is no bad worse or much worse. There is however we want to manage our existence on this planet. When given virtually unlimited possibilities, humans choose systematic violence, slavery, serfdom, subjugation, extortion, etc..
DeleteHumans are selfish stupid evil animals who apparently cannot figure out peaceful coexistence. We're a garbage species. Never mind a chance to rebuild correctly. Completely exterminate us before we spread to other parts of the galaxy or greater universe.