How would HCR address the Gaza problem?

[Trevor Watkins]

One of the great issues of the 3rd decade of the 3rd millennium is the Gaza conflict in Israel.

How would the HarmConsentRule, as part of the Individualist Manifesto, address this issue?

Truth and trust are in short supply on both sides. Race, culture, religion, revenge are all deeply interwoven. Powerful men, vested interests, global tensions must all be factored in.

Who has the most to gain from a resolution of this conflict? The individuals, Arabs and Jews, whose lives are being destroyed by the insanity of their leaders. They are the least considered, most afflicted, often ignored, usually unwilling participants in this game of drones, rockets and bombs. Their value is measured in terms of collateral damage, their interests unimportant, their consent unrequested.

Imagine a consent-seeking force, known as the ConsentForce,  being deployed by a group of philanthropists. The  Consent Force  members would probably be mean and scary mercenaries, heavily armed and well-protected. They would be accompanied by an administrative wing, to whom they would report. This force would take complaints from individuals who believed they were about to be harmed, or had already been harmed, without their consent, or required help with their self-defense. The administrative wing would evaluate the consent violation. If the violation is disputed they would convene a jury of locals to arbitrate the dispute. If the violation is confirmed then the administrators would  allocate it to the enforcement wing for resolution. The enforcers would seek justice from the consent violator, initially by means of an apology, restitution, restraint, and if necessary incarceration and punishment.  Violence would be avoided where possible. Restitution would be paid to the victim, with a percentage retained for expenses.

Initially such a force would be banned by the government, threatened by the terrorists, and ignored by the populace. But if the ConsentForce is successful in just a few cases, their popularity will rapidly improve, and they will be overwhelmed by requests. At this point the government and terrorists would probably unite to obliterate this challenge to their authority. The ConsentForce would probably have to go underground and operate clandestinely.  The original philanthropic sponsors would be targeted by public and secret organisations. Their survival would depend on their commitment and fortitude.

Could it work? There have been a few cases in history. The French and Finnish resistance in the 2nd world war, the boers in the Anglo-Boer war, various peasant uprisings. But for now, the all powerful state and their terrorist opponents hold sway. The problem with peaceful revolutions is that they are so  peaceful.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

[Graeme Bland]

I often think about how privatized militaries could serve in place of governmental militaries. 

The 'daydream' always plays out in a circular way - what starts as a group with good intent, run by 'real' individuals seeking out good, deteriorates in one of two ways: 

1. The group dissolves as their common goal are reached. 
2. The group's leadership slowly (or rapidly) shifts from those with good intent to those with intent to gain. (See: governmental militaries as an example of this). 

Even the examples you gave ended up in the same way - either dissolved or under governmental/ large corporate control. 

That said, true peace is unattainable. While 99.999% of the earth's population would be happy to live in peace, there will always be those who aim to gain by taking what others have. This unfortunate truth necessitates self-preservation (on both an individual scale and on a societal/ national scale).  So, what does this self-preservation/ protection look like? Is it military (governmental or private)? Is it the right to bear arms? Is it group or individual protection in the first place (who gets protected first). 

In the example you gave, the people of Isreal/ Palastine suffer for their own "protection". But is there an alternative that serves the people better? Is the populace not the first to suffer in all international conflicts? And are they willing to pay the price? If they refused this course of action, would the resulting effect be better or worse? 

I think the world is too large/ too populated to have these kinds of discussions and let morality lead, because we cannot answer all these questions in a way that benefits all affected. 

In summary: There is no true, attainable peace. The resulting conflict will produce victims. Who gets to say who they should be? 

*More questions than answers, sorry. But an interesting discussion to be had!

---

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 12:11 PM
To: Individualist Movement <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: IM: How would HCR address the Gaza problem?

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Individualist Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to individualis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkYMAPF8E9sPrAHrWrjkSUXZEpBtmf8%2Bo7Zc98FFvo2zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

Theoretically speaking the problem is borders and the nationalist socialist thinking that created them. If only private property and private / corporative fences existed, those poor souls would not be having this problem.

In practice national borders maintained by socialist government does exist and is the problem. How to get rid of it has been the primary challenge for Libertarians since inception. I don't think there is a solution in this case. At least not in the short term.

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 04:32, Graeme Bland <graem...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AM8P193MB12676729AE7F6A6FD069AF1BAE442%40AM8P193MB1267.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Stephen vJ]

One could argue that racism / xenophobia is the root cause, but it seems to me that racism, though loathsome and despicable, is only a societal or economic problem when there is collective ownership of certain property. An Israelite refusing to serve a Jordanian customer in his pork rind store is bound to pay the price in lost revenue, but that is his choice. Privately owned bakeries should not be forced to sell their cakes to someone based on anything, including accent, skin colour, sexual orientation, etc... the problem is when that product or service is public, like a seat on a bus, a park bench, a beach or a public school. Without borders there would be no USA, but there may still be Americans... but without public goods and services, there should be no violent disagreement over who gets to sit on the government couch today.

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 08:16, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Theoretically speaking the problem is borders and the nationalist socialist thinking that created them. If only private property and private / corporative fences existed, those poor souls would not be having this problem.

[Graeme Bland]

Could I ask a question to the group in reference to the previous emails, relating to borders? 

One of my biggest offputs about Libertarianism is the open border/ no border policy. I know that many argue that borders are "arbitrary and violently imposed", however, could one not argue that ethnic and cultural mixing is an "attack" on a nation's people? 

Using the immigration issue in Europe as an example, crime stats have soared - could one not argue that it is a government's first duty to protect the liberty/ lives of its people before the liberty/ lives of non-nationals? It's inarguable that rape, murder, theft, and crime in general is an affront to the liberty/ lives of those it impacts, and if they are byproducts of open borders, then it is the duty of the people and its government to protect against those issues, at least before considering the atrocities (like war crimes) that those same immigrants could/ do face in their own country. 

Please don't misconstrue my question as anything but genuine curiosity. I reserve any judgement/ opinion on the Israel/ Palestine issue, simply because I think there are far too many layers to unpack (for my pea brain, at least). That said, if Israel were to open their borders (for the case of the argument, let's pretend that there isn't a history of border/ land dispute) then would the Israeli people's liberty not suffer for it - even if it is only their way of life that changes, is that not sufficient argument to keep their borders closed? 

Looking forward to hearing more on the topic!  

---

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 4:58 PM
To: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: IM: How would HCR address the Gaza problem?

 

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/B905A7CF-ABE4-4CB5-98E2-5BE77DB88B9B%40gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

There is a huge difference between open borders and no borders. If you're going to have borders at all, what is the use of leaving them open ? That makes no sense to me.

This also highlight part of the problem with the whole debate - it is not really about the borders or the way of life, but the honeypot which is modern social-democratic welfare states. When a government taxes it citizens and then spends that money on other people, that seems like a great crime against the tax payer.

If you're going to have borders at all, they should be high and protected, like the Berlin wall before 1990. Those who get through should not be given housing and medical services, they should be turned around and shot back to where they came from with one of those big circus cannons or put to work in Siberia or whatever the local equivalent is.

I'm deliberately stating it in those terms because it astounds me that liberals (formerly socialists) were able to re-define commonly used terms in such a way that the very obviously socialist position above is now phrased in right-wing terms. They have completely flipped the tables so that, what was communist before is now called conservative and what was socialist before is now liberal so that whichever way you lean, it will be collectivist.

Contrary to all that socialist doctrine is the argument for no borders, which goes along with no government and is by definition individualist. You cannot have borders without government and it is almost impossible to have government without borders... both borders and government are inherently collectivist concepts, contrary and in direct conflict with freedom, liberty and individualism.

The argument that without borders people and their way of life would be threatened is in itself rather racist, since it assumes neat groupings of people into homogenous types. It also assumes that each group has a separate government, that government represents its people and that all those people are within national borders. None of those assumptions are true anywhere.

Within SA there is not a single piece of land more than 30km circumference where you would find only one sort of people. Even that is racist, because, again, it assumes individuals can be classified, grouped and bunched together. In reality you cannot find more that one kind of a people beyond the skin of the given individual you're trying to match.

There is no such thing as German culture as anyone familiar with the country can attest to. The people in Berlin do not speak the same or eat the same or do the same as the people of Munich. Accountants in those cities typically have more in common with Accountants in Italy and Zaire than they do with fans of Rammstein with the same country.

People cannot be neatly grouped in bunches - the Apartheid government tried and failed miserably. Groups of people cannot be kept apart - East Germany tried and failed miserably. There are still to this day German speaking, strudel eating, oompa band playing people in Australia, Namibia and Pennsylvania, suggesting that so-called "culture" is a lot more resilient that people give it credit for.

Also, it seems weird to want to keep something nebulous and poorly defined alive artificially when the individuals within the group have a tendency to change... if borders did prevent that change, it would necessarily be contrary to the wishes of those people. If it wasn't, then you could just leave them be without borders and they wouldn't change.

I no longer tend cattle like my grandfather did and some might call this a tragedy, but I must say, I rather like this Internet thing. Thank gods Verwoerd only banned TV for a short time - I rather like the cultural changes brought about by TV. Who knows, if that didn't happen, Apartheid might have still been a thing today. Sometimes change is good.

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 14:45, Graeme Bland <graem...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/DB9P193MB1275FCC5FB76181E46FF1B1DAE442%40DB9P193MB1275.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Stephen vJ]

It has always baffled me why the Tswana people in Limpopo need to pay taxes to fund roads in the Eastern Cape, a largely Xhosa area, while no such fiscal relationship exists with, and they even require passports to visit, their literal cousins on the opposite bank of the river, in Botswana.

More often than not, people are split up and divided by borders. It is impossible to draw a border around any given group of people. When you try, you will automatically separate people who do not want to be separated. Borders protect nothing and destroy family bonds.

This is the point where someone chimes in with "But the Nigerians !!!" Or "But the Chinese !!!".

How are those people different from the Indian community in SA ? Apparently their foods are less tasty or something... but it seems they're just new. So give it a few years and then everyone will be used to the new cultural infusion, just like they integrated with bunny-chowing delight the previous ones.

All around the world are little clubs, like the Ukrainians in Alberta or South Africans in Canada or Expats in Wuxi... these groups typically have in common a) wanting to cling to a small part of the home country (knowing that ultimately it is futile and will last at most one generation) and b) share tips on how to integrate into the new country.

All this while "back home" things don't remain static. I've heard people say real culture shock is not being in a different country and feeling out, but returning to base and finding you no longer fit in there anymore either. The world is dynamic and as much as I miss the club culture of 1995, that no longer exists and there is no way back... and if there was, I wouldn't go, because I like Netflix too much.

To believe that borders will solve problems of crime is to put your faith in government... that same government who runs Kempton Park Traffic Department, maintain street lights and mow the grass in play parks. Even if borders made sense in theory, I would not trust government with it.

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 15:47, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a huge difference between open borders and no borders. If you're going to have borders at all, what is the use of leaving them open ? That makes no sense to me.

[Stephen vJ]

If you can;

- clearly and unambiguously define a culture (any culture) and

- name any two human beings belonging exclusively to that culture and

- draw a geographical circle around them without including anyone else and

- ensure neither would even want to interact with anyone else outside that circle

... then maybe we can look at making that circle a border... assuming they both vote for the same one of them so as to establish a legitimate government.

Much easier to imagine are two people finding some mutual attraction, agreeing to co-habitate, buying a house and putting up a fence to demarcate their private property and taking steps to keep themselves safe, while still being a welcoming place for friends and family to visit.

Somehow some people misconstrue that fence with a border. I have not figured out the logic behind that one yet. To me it is very simple - we have two words - fence and border - because they mean different things. The fence or property line is private and individualist, whereas border is public and collectivist.

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 16:14, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

It has always baffled me why the Tswana people in Limpopo need to pay taxes to fund roads in the Eastern Cape, a largely Xhosa area, while no such fiscal relationship exists with, and they even require passports to visit, their literal cousins on the opposite bank of the river, in Botswana.

[Stephen vJ]

Ok, one last comment... people are very quick to blame crime on immigrants, but immigrants are also disproportionately responsible for filling spaces in the labour market left open by locals, opening new businesses, coming up with innovative solutions and generally being entrepreneurial, thus lowering prices, increasing productivity and adding to economic growth.

If you eliminate the social welfare honeypot, it follows that almost 100% of immigrants will contribute positively to the economy, so it makes no sense to punish the whole economy by locking out 999 people in order to prevent the harm from letting in 1. Of course, the left would have us believe people are the problem and the right simply point to those problem people being someone else, but in the end they are both very anti-human.

A few years ago there was a study on factors that make the standard of living good / better within cities across the world and the #1 factor was found to be simply the number of people i.e. the more people are in a city, the better off the average person in that city. Simply adding more people helped everyone. The same can be said for the planet as a whole - there has never been more of us and it has never gone better with us on average than now.

Of course people are attracted to cities where living standards are high, so this can be either cause & effect reversed or a positive feedback loop, but either way it spits in the face of overpopulation Malthusian chicken littles. It also debunks the whole "some cultures are just better than others" malarky.

Some other factors include economic freedom, but when in close proximity, more people are even more valuable than freedom. The fact that we as a species fairly consistently see murder as the ultimate crime and the death of individuals as the greatest punishment / tragedy, suggests that at an evolutionary level, we probably intuitively get this.

Even though some individuals are bad, on the whole and for the most part, more of us seems to be a good thing. I'm not even talking rich, educated, etc... in fact, there seems to be some evidence suggesting that the marginal added value is greater from the less skilled and educated immigrant than from the educated ones.

I said last comment, so I'm squeezing too much into one post and will undoubtedly get a TLDNR... but one last point... don't believe the diversity has value argument for open borders. That is a sly attempt to group people together (the foundation of racism) and to do so with self-righteous conviction, in the name of whatever group is the oppressed minority of the moment.

Diversity has value in many cases, but if I'm building a basketball team, I'm probably not going to start recruitment at the university's department of gender studies. Placing artificial barriers between people, like Apartheid or BBBEE or national borders or work permits or immigration eligibility criteria means that the recruiter cannot get the best possible candidate for the job.

When options are reduced, the whole economy suffers... in the same way South African companies (and thus everyone) suffered under Apartheid from being allowed to only recruit from the very small pool of so-called and arbitrarily classified as such "white" people. If the "white" guy was really the best candidate, there would not need to enforce it by law... the fact that there was, suggests in many cases the best candidate was not "white" and thus sub-par candidates appointed and thus the entire country suffered. Sies !

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 16:27, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you can;

[Stephen vJ]

Ok, really this time... last comment. This is from an old and now heavily criticized and outdated book, but it does illustrate an interesting point (if you're a presumptuous white guy completely ignoring all but European peoples), terms & conditions apply, image subject to copyright and all that...

Details are less important - the point here is that Alberta has more in common with Montana and Colorado than with Louisiana or Quebec, while those two have more in common than Quebec has with any of it's immediate neighbours and so-called countrymen.

If borders are intended to preserve culture, then this image shows that to be utterly bogus. This is why Spike lives in Needles California and not Los Angeles - even within the same state there are multiple very distinct cultures. Reality is far more complex than any line on the ground can ever hope to deal with.

Stephen.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 19:51, Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, one last comment... people are very quick to blame crime on immigrants, but immigrants are also disproportionately responsible for filling spaces in the labour market left open by locals, opening new businesses, coming up with innovative solutions and generally being entrepreneurial, thus lowering prices, increasing productivity and adding to economic growth.

[Sid Nothard]

The only services we require from government are:

 

Defence against foreign invaders

Protection from criminals

Protection of property rights

Enforcement of contract

 

We don’t need them for anything else.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/DB9P193MB1275FCC5FB76181E46FF1B1DAE442%40DB9P193MB1275.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Graeme Bland]

Hi Stephen, 

Thanks for the exceptionally detailed reply - I will try my best to touch on the points you raised (at least those that I have follow up questions on), though time is limited. If I miss any points you made in my follow up, please reference me there and I'll correct/ update anything I get wrong. I did read everything you sent, but may look over some points due to volume 🙂 

1. You make borders sound radical, as if there are only two options: nothing whatsoever or complete fascist control over boundaries. Is there not a happier medium? I would think that having stops in place for people with criminal records to be turned away at the border of your country is fair and non-Apartheid'y, for example? 

1. One of the only jobs of a government is to protect its people - if we're turning away 999 to protect against 1, is that not good? (I also think that the figure you gave paints a vastly different picture to the reality, unless you're suggesting that only 0.1% of the immigrant population commit 100% of the crime. Crime stats in Europe, for example, have risen at alarming rates, and immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime when compared to their share of the population. You could also argue that undocumented immigrants aren't a part of these stats and would paint an even more alarming picture... 
1. Also, crime stats in SA suggest that 63% of violent crime is committed by 1% of the population. Again, I ask, is it not worth sending away the 999 then? 
2. On your point of bringing skilled workers into a country: as a father to a daughter, I'd rather send her to a doctor who isn't necessarily the best, but is the best my country could produce, than increase the chances of her being raped simply to have access to a marginally better doctor. Not sure if I'm insane/ racist for that belief. 
1. And in saying that, if one of the primary reasons you argue for immigration is economic development, then how can you argue Apartheid was a failed system, at least at an economic level? 
2. Also, the internet has given skilled workers from all around the world access to jobs in almost any country. I, as a South African living in SA, work exclusively with Canadian and American clientele. I don't need to move there to improve my chances of working with those people - I use the tools provided to me without forcing myself on that country's people. 

2. How is collectivism on private property okay, but collectivism as a country not? 

1. On that point, I think it's illogical to label separatism as racist. We naturally group ourselves with 'birds of a feather'. We don't have to keep almost exclusively same-race friend groups, but that is something exceedingly common in the "Rainbow Nation". Or is it racist to say, "That person is like me, shares many of my beliefs and hobbies, and therefore I want to spend time with them. On the other hand, that person is nothing like me and therefore I do not want to spend time with them?" I'm happy to be corrected, but that is an inherently human trait, and I don't see the difference between small-scale application and large-scale...
2. If I live in a 'white', Christian, football-loving country, why should I have to change because someone else's country is dysfunctional? And if I am forced to allow someone into my country, why should it be me who changes, while they are free to practice the same culture and religion that caused the dysfunction in their country in the first place? That's not very libertarian, surely?? (Having to give up my freedom of belief, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and so on, so that someone else can have it in turn (someone who has less claim to it than me, by nationality)). 
1. (Charity starts at home, and I'd think that libertarian principles do to)... 

I have to get to work now, so I have to cut this mail short, but these are the main areas of your reply that I am left wanting for more clarity. 

Thanks again for the detailed reply. Sorry that I couldn't spend more time on mine! 

---

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:36 AM

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/77BA7ACE-0AF1-4C0E-9E17-A0E43F88D651%40gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

Yaay! I knew Stephen was hiding in there somewhere. It astounds me to say that I agree with everything you say. Of course, this is a reprise of a debate we had on Libsa googlegroups at the end of April, but it's good to see that our correct views then are still correct now😁.

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/E3F160DA-B3EF-49F4-ABBE-A17746FAED2E%40gmail.com.

[Trevor Watkins]

in red below

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 09:19, Graeme Bland <graem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Stephen, 

Thanks for the exceptionally detailed reply - I will try my best to touch on the points you raised (at least those that I have follow up questions on), though time is limited. If I miss any points you made in my follow up, please reference me there and I'll correct/ update anything I get wrong. I did read everything you sent, but may look over some points due to volume 🙂 

1. You make borders sound radical, as if there are only two options: nothing whatsoever or complete fascist control over boundaries. terminology is important. A border is defined as “a line separating two countries,”. A boundary is defined as a line which marks the limits of an area. A border is specifically a concept attached to the nation-state. A boundary is much more flexible, but attached to the concept of property rights.
2. Is there not a happier medium? I would think that having stops in place for people with criminal records to be turned away at the border of your country is fair and non-Apartheid'y, for example? A civilised  country catches its criminals by apprehending them committing some well-defined crime, giving them a fair trial and sentencing them appropriately, no matter where they come from. They do not rely on the opinion of some tin-pot dictator and the dubious documentation he supplies. Prior to 1994, most blacks would have been turned away by the South frican authorities. How many Jews were turned away by so-called western democracies desperately fleeing Nazi Germany, where breathing while Jewish was considered a crime. Let's not even mention the communist states.

1. One of the only jobs of a government is to protect its people - if we're turning away 999 to protect against 1, is that not good? (I also think that the figure you gave paints a vastly different picture to the reality, unless you're suggesting that only 0.1% of the immigrant population commit 100% of the crime. Well documented research indicates tthat 5% of any population is criminal, and that 10% of that population must be deployed to police them. This appears to be true independent of nationality.  Crime stats in Europe, for example, have risen at alarming rates, and immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime when compared to their share of the population. You could also argue that undocumented immigrants aren't a part of these stats and would paint an even more alarming picture... 
1. Also, crime stats in SA suggest that 63% of violent crime is committed by 1% of the population. Again, I ask, is it not worth sending away the 999 then? USA could not have built the A bomb without immigrants. Elon Musk is an immigrant. Most English speakers in SA are recent immigrants.

1. On your point of bringing skilled workers into a country: as a father to a daughter, I'd rather send her to a doctor who isn't necessarily the best, but is the best my country could produce, than increase the chances of her being raped simply to have access to a marginally better doctor. Not sure if I'm insane/ racist for that belief. 

1. And in saying that, if one of the primary reasons you argue for immigration is economic development, then how can you argue Apartheid was a failed system, at least at an economic level? Apaartheid was a failed social system, and a mildly successful economic system. In its absence there is general agreement SA would have been richer.

1. Also, the internet has given skilled workers from all around the world access to jobs in almost any country. I, as a South African living in SA, work exclusively with Canadian and American clientele. I don't need to move there to improve my chances of working with those people - I use the tools provided to me without forcing myself on that country's people. 

2. How is collectivism on private property okay, but collectivism as a country not? Most families are socialist. Most successful economies are not.

1. On that point, I think it's illogical to label separatism as racist. We naturally group ourselves with 'birds of a feather'. We don't have to keep almost exclusively same-race friend groups, but that is something exceedingly common in the "Rainbow Nation". Or is it racist to say, "That person is like me, shares many of my beliefs and hobbies, and therefore I want to spend time with them. On the other hand, that person is nothing like me and therefore I do not want to spend time with them?" I'm happy to be corrected, but that is an inherently human trait, and I don't see the difference between small-scale application and large-scale... Only when you forbid free association, as apartheid did, is it wrong and often racist.
2. If I live in a 'white', Christian, football-loving country, why should I have to change because someone else's country is dysfunctional? And if I am forced to allow someone into my country, why should it be me who changes, while they are free to practice the same culture and religion that caused the dysfunction in their country in the first place? As they say, you get the government you deserve. Vote Reform. That's not very libertarian, surely?? (Having to give up my freedom of belief, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and so on, so that someone else can have it in turn (someone who has less claim to it than me, by nationality)). 
1. (Charity starts at home, and I'd think that libertarian principles do to)... Charity is not a libertarian principle.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AM8P193MB126717EC31422B7C645AD057AE452%40AM8P193MB1267.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Some people would argue we don't even need them for that, but if we could whittle government down to just those functions I would be very happy.

S.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/002301db1ecc%24a6ca9ea0%24f45fdbe0%24%40mweb.co.za.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

This is a very important point. We sometimes get so hung up on the two or three little things we disagree on that we forget about the 99% we do agree on. I may not agree with juries and you may not like my views on words causing harm, but in the end we are both still individualists / libertarians. The interesting debates are in the areas where we disagree and sometimes those disagreements get quite heated, but compared to the world outside we are all essentially of one mind.

S.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LmEs3AcBumSvBVre14qrGrU0H%2BZqtdY9qoX1xrbduXT%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

In purple.

S.

Op Di. 15 Okt. 2024 om 06:28 het Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> geskryf:

in red below

Trevor Watkins .. cSASI
bas...@gmail.com - 083 44 11 721 - www.individualist.one

On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 at 09:19, Graeme Bland <graem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Stephen, 

Thanks for the exceptionally detailed reply - I will try my best to touch on the points you raised (at least those that I have follow up questions on), though time is limited. If I miss any points you made in my follow up, please reference me there and I'll correct/ update anything I get wrong. I did read everything you sent, but may look over some points due to volume 🙂 

1. You make borders sound radical, as if there are only two options: nothing whatsoever or complete fascist control over boundaries. terminology is important. A border is defined as “a line separating two countries,”. A boundary is defined as a line which marks the limits of an area. A border is specifically a concept attached to the nation-state. A boundary is much more flexible, but attached to the concept of property rights. My phrasing in radical and fascist terms was deliberate. The problem with ideas like "optimal level of taxation" or "balanced reporting" is that it assumes the middle-ground is somehow better... like somewhere between drowning the baby and strangling the baby we can find some better way to kill the baby. Tax is theft, no matter how small the tax. There is no material difference between being raped for 2 minutes vs. 5 minutes. If you're going to exclude people, the who, why and how much is not that interesting to me - you're excluding people, harming the economy and depriving human beings of freedom - how much doesn't matter, the whole thing should stop. The correct answer is zero. So you can argue that 2 minutes is shorter than 5 or that 10% tax is better than 40% tax, but I'm still going to advocate you get pelted to death with rocks for your crime. Big rocks, small rocks, doesn't matter - dead is dead. Either you're for borders or against... put up the Berlin wall with barbed wire on top or tear the whole thing down, don't go half way or let people figure out they can just walk around it - that's just hiding the true nature of the thing.
2. Is there not a happier medium? I would think that having stops in place for people with criminal records to be turned away at the border of your country is fair and non-Apartheid'y, for example? A civilised  country catches its criminals by apprehending them committing some well-defined crime, giving them a fair trial and sentencing them appropriately, no matter where they come from. They do not rely on the opinion of some tin-pot dictator and the dubious documentation he supplies. Prior to 1994, most blacks would have been turned away by the South frican authorities. How many Jews were turned away by so-called western democracies desperately fleeing Nazi Germany, where breathing while Jewish was considered a crime. Let's not even mention the communist states. Exactly. Plus, we are all immigrants. My one grandfather grew up in Nigel, the other in Knysna, while my grandmothers grew up in Springs and Louis Trichard. Not a single one of them remained in that place for long. By the logic of borders, my grandfather should never have left the independent republic on Nigel and should have married his cousin Susanna to preserve the uniquely Nigellian culture. Urgh, sies. To make a separation between local criminals and imported ones is to miss the point - a criminal is a criminal, and we are all immigrants, some from slightly farther away than others, but still immigrants. Also, some systems don't lend themselves to degrees... you can't have all the "good" parts of segregation, but still come out not smelling of Apartheid.

1. One of the only jobs of a government is to protect its people - if we're turning away 999 to protect against 1, is that not good? (I also think that the figure you gave paints a vastly different picture to the reality, unless you're suggesting that only 0.1% of the immigrant population commit 100% of the crime. Well documented research indicates tthat 5% of any population is criminal, and that 10% of that population must be deployed to police them. This appears to be true independent of nationality.  Crime stats in Europe, for example, have risen at alarming rates, and immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime when compared to their share of the population. You could also argue that undocumented immigrants aren't a part of these stats and would paint an even more alarming picture... 

1. Also, crime stats in SA suggest that 63% of violent crime is committed by 1% of the population. Again, I ask, is it not worth sending away the 999 then? USA could not have built the A bomb without immigrants. Elon Musk is an immigrant. Most English speakers in SA are recent immigrants. Also, by that logic we should lock up all males, since crime is disproportionately commited by men. You're essentially saying we should lock up the 999 innocent men in order to prevent the crimes of the 1 in 1000 men who is a criminal, because in general men are responsible for 95% of crimes. No, that doesn't make sense. Catch the criminal and assume the innocence of the rest - that presumption of innocense, due process and not punishing the guilty without sufficient proof is the foundation of civilization... and what is totally absent at borders.

1. On your point of bringing skilled workers into a country: as a father to a daughter, I'd rather send her to a doctor who isn't necessarily the best, but is the best my country could produce, than increase the chances of her being raped simply to have access to a marginally better doctor. Not sure if I'm insane/ racist for that belief. 

1. And in saying that, if one of the primary reasons you argue for immigration is economic development, then how can you argue Apartheid was a failed system, at least at an economic level? Apaartheid was a failed social system, and a mildly successful economic system. In its absence there is general agreement SA would have been richer. Apartheid's economic performance was dysmal. I remember my dad paying 27% interest and inflation being 18% and the majority of citizens not being able to read and write and living in shacks at the same time as the country was producing two thirds of the world's gold. That's pathetic. Nothing is as much responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.

1. Also, the internet has given skilled workers from all around the world access to jobs in almost any country. I, as a South African living in SA, work exclusively with Canadian and American clientele. I don't need to move there to improve my chances of working with those people - I use the tools provided to me without forcing myself on that country's people. 

2. How is collectivism on private property okay, but collectivism as a country not? Most families are socialist. Most successful economies are not. Because of consent. We share property or hold private property collectively through an initial voluntary agreement, whereas public property at national level is taken by force, cannot be opted out of and was not consented to by any of the individuals involved. Shared private property can typically be opted out of, whereas I cannot opt out of property owned collectively by all the citizens of a country. In fact, the fact that I cannot sell my share in that property defies the definition of property - technically I don't own it, the State does. It just pretends to do so on our behalf, but if you can't sell your share in it, then you don't really own it.

1. On that point, I think it's illogical to label separatism as racist. We naturally group ourselves with 'birds of a feather'. We don't have to keep almost exclusively same-race friend groups, but that is something exceedingly common in the "Rainbow Nation". Or is it racist to say, "That person is like me, shares many of my beliefs and hobbies, and therefore I want to spend time with them. On the other hand, that person is nothing like me and therefore I do not want to spend time with them?" I'm happy to be corrected, but that is an inherently human trait, and I don't see the difference between small-scale application and large-scale... Only when you forbid free association, as apartheid did, is it wrong and often racist. The key here again is consent - you can do with your clubs and groups whatever you like. You can classify yourself as anything and identify with any group you like... the problem comes in when others decide to classify and group you without your consent, then tell you where to go and what to do and how to act based on their classification of you.
2. If I live in a 'white', Christian, football-loving country, why should I have to change because someone else's country is dysfunctional? You seem to think that "your" country belongs to you. It does not - it belongs to the State. You only have control over your own property, not that of your neighbours. And if I am forced to allow someone into my country, why should it be me who changes, while they are free to practice the same culture and religion that caused the dysfunction in their country in the first place? As they say, you get the government you deserve. Vote Reform. Here I disagree with Trevor... I think voting is useless, because no matter who you vote for, government wins. Voting is merely a decoy to make people think they have control over their masters, when they clearly don't. My position is that you only have dominion over your own property. It may shock and disappoint you to find that you have that little control over things you find valuable and dear, but sadly we don't. The country does not belong to you and you have no control over it. By the way, it is not even the way you would want it to be, you're just used to the current state of affairs. That's not very libertarian, surely?? (Having to give up my freedom of belief, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and so on, so that someone else can have it in turn (someone who has less claim to it than me, by nationality)). You're talking about someone else's stuff here... you have absolute freedom of movement anywhere on your property and the rest does not belong to you. You can believe anything you like and nobody is climbing into your head to forcibly move thoughts around in there. You can still say whatever you like, just like before - it might just be a bit more obvious now that other's have no obligation to listen... but the Internet had the same effect and we're not banning that any time soon.
1. (Charity starts at home, and I'd think that libertarian principles do to)... Charity is not a libertarian principle. Home is a much smaller domain than most people would like to believe. Show me the title deed... only that is home, the rest is not.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAN6K2LkD0NiJNywykS3GHWRdKJMJ5h6jxyRZhrZXJYVG%2BkRnog%40mail.gmail.com.

[Graeme Bland]

Hi Trevor/ Stephen, 

Thanks for the replies. You've both given me a lot to chew on. Your responses make a lot of sense. There are definitely points that I don't agree with at face value, though I need time to think critically about what was said before I can draw any concrete conclusions. 

Thanks again for the interesting discussion! 

G

---

From: indivi...@googlegroups.com <indivi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Stephen van Jaarsveldt <sjaar...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:13 PM

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/CAMr06S5UcrZYWHD3a0x6wmzN-goBytsfEcA%2BPALt7%2B5%3D%2BetaEg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen vJ]

I'm glad to hear that there are things you disagree with and I'm looking forward to hearing about them. If we all agreed on everything, there would be no growth or progress. It is when someone disagrees that we move forward, because either that person's view is better and then we all change for the better or it is not and then that person changes for the better. I absolutely hate agreeing to disagree because that is a lost opportunity to talk through differences of opinion until someone improves their position.

Stephen.

On Oct 16, 2024, at 03:04, Graeme Bland <graem...@gmail.com> wrote:



<image.jpeg>

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/individualist/AM8P193MB12673AC4DDB57B70B041566FAE462%40AM8P193MB1267.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.