MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Autistic Student Sues School District Over Drug Sting Entrapment, Judge Dismisses Case

Since being arrested nearly three years ago for buying a half of a joint of pot for an undercover police officer, Jesse Snodgrass and his parents have been waging a legal and public relations battle with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) in Riverside County, California. They sued the school district for its involvement in the undercover drug sting, and claim that Jesse, an autistic and special needs student, was unjustly targeted.

Judge Raquel A. Marquez. dismissed Jesse's case on October 30, 2015, citing that there was no evidence that TVUSD knowingly targeted Jesse. Read the judge's full remarks here. 

The Snodgrass' released this statement in response, asserting that they will appeal the decision:

The plaintiffs in this case feel extremely disappointed and perplexed that the judge did NOT allow this matter to be decided by a jury, adding that there existed triable issues of material fact as to Michael Hubbard’s - TVUSD dir. of Child Welfare and Attendance - involvement with the operation and whether he targeted Jesse, among other triable issues. They feel that the judge WEIGHED the evidence which is not the court's role on Summary Judgment and justified the ruling based on "police cooperation and discretionary immunities" that the plaintiffs continue to assert do NOT apply. According to the plaintiffs, there did exist several inconsistencies in the decision and they plan to appeal.

Go here for Reason TV's original coverage of Jesse's story. 

Download Video as MP4

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    From the original Reason article:

    The ordeal began on the first day of school last fall. The family had just moved to a new neighborhood and their son began his senior year at a new school, Chaparral High, in the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Their son rarely socialized, so his mom was thrilled when he announced that he had made a new friend in art class on the first day of school.

    "We were so excited. I told him he should ask his friend to come over for pizza and play video games," says Catherine Snodgrass, "but his new friend always had an excuse."

    His new friend, who went under the name of Daniel Briggs, was known as "Deputy Dan" to many students because it was so apparent to them that he was an undercover officer. However, to their son, whose disabilities make it hard for him to gauge social cues, Dan was his only real friend.

    Dan reportedly sent 60 text messages to their son begging for drugs. According to his parents, the pressure to buy drugs was too much for the autistic teen who began physically harming himself.

    The Snodgrass' son finally agreed to buy Dan the pot. Dan give him twenty dollars and it took him three weeks to buy a half joint of pot off a homeless man downtown. This happened twice. When Dan asked a third time, their son refused and Dan cut off all communication.

    "Our son was pretty broken up about that and he was back to having zero friends," says Doug Snodgrass.
  • Crusty Juggler||

    On December 11, 2012 armed police officers walked into their son's classroom and arrested him in front of his peers. He was taken to the juvenile detention center, along with the 21 other arrestees, where he was kept for 48 hours. First hand reports claim that the juvenile center was caught off guard by the large number of arrests and that some youths had to sleep on the floor, using toilet paper as pillows.

    Their son was also expelled from high school

    This story is not infuriating, not at all.

  • Ted S.||

    Once again, the state is the biggest bully of them all.

  • Raven Nation||

    Yeah, I remember reading this when it first came out and was so infuriated I had trouble concentrating on anything else for a while.

  • lap83||

    That's fucked up. I hope they homeschool him, or at least don't put him back into public school

  • ||

    Oh look, another sadistic weakest-member-of-the-herd-targeting sociopath is a cop. What. A. Surprise.

  • R C Dean||

    Dan reportedly sent 60 text messages to their son begging for drugs.

    there was no evidence that TVUSD knowingly targeted Jesse.

    Only one of these can be true.

  • ||

    I'm still needing to understand how this isn't instant entrapment.

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    Pretty fucking clear it is, going back to Sorrells v. United States. That was only an hour and a half conversation, not 60 separate requests.

  • ||

    Hey, Tulpa. Say something stupid about this. Please. You know you want to, you fucking idiot.

  • straffinrun||

    If we have laws, they have to be applied equally. What if a black autistic kid is arrested after they let this white autistic kid go? What if a kid without autism is later arrested? RULZ!

  • np||

    Rulebreakers should stop whining about entrapment. Autism is no excuse for breaking the law.

  • Aloysious||

    I'm kinda hoping for a Tupla vs. Pirate Truther face off, myself. Just for the laffs.

  • croaker||

    I'm kinda hoping Tupla falls into a woodchipper.

  • ||

    Rooster has 62 fucking posts in last nights threads including many middle of the night posts after everyone left to make sure he got the last word. What a pathetic person.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Oh, it's worse that that. He was trolling under 2 different handles in the YouTube comments. As I said before, it's not the most pathetic thing I've ever seen, but it's probably the most pathetic thing this year.

  • Rooster||

    It's still on the front page. If you think my last words were incorrect, go ahead and set me straight.

  • MSimon||

    Not possible to set you straight.

  • croaker||

    The only way to straighten your ass out would be the rack.

  • ||

    Rooster has 62 fucking posts in last nights threads including many middle of the night posts after everyone left to make sure he got the last word. What a pathetic person.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Tulpa was probably the most pathetic he's ever been in there. Which is really saying something.

  • Rooster||

    You seem to have experience on this blog despite my never having seen your name before.

    I'd hate to think that you're the sockpuppet of a total hypocrite.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You seem to have experience on this blog...

    Fuck off Tulpa, you mendacious cunt!

  • SugarFree||

    Be nice, Franky.

    Can you imagine how hard it must be to go to a place where the vast majority of people have indicated over and over that they have no interest whatsoever in your bad faith arguments that you have to change your handle in order to trick them into talking to you?

    I mean, wow, how dispirited and low do you have to get to deceive people just so they will give you attention? It's the intellectual equivalent of ringing a doorbell and running away, or prank calling a radio station. It's the act of a desperate person. A sad and desperate person.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    What about making up a handle like Chatsubo to disagree with himself to keep the argument going? That's got to be pretty close to rock bottom.

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, P-Man. That's getting close the abyss.

  • Rooster||

    Given that you think nearly everyone in the world is one person's sockpuppet, maybe you should be more careful how you treat this person. A good start would be addressing him by his proper title "Your Stability".

  • MSimon||

    "Your Frozenness"

  • croaker||

    Your bukkakeness.

  • Gene||

    What a pathetic person

    You can say that again.

  • See Double You||

    Will he sink low enough to defend those Louisiana cops?

  • Trigger Warning||

    I'll say that yes, he will. But holy fuck, I can't believe those two actually got charged. After Tamir Rice, I thought they could just shoot whoever the fuck they wanted for any reason.

  • croaker||

    Don't count your chickens before they're getting ass-raped in the penitentiary.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I don't know why anyone engages him. He is worthy only of your ridicule.

  • Rooster||

    "Great minds discuss ideas, ordinary minds discuss events, small minds discuss other people."

    -- Eleanor Roosevelt

  • kbolino||

    And pitiful minds discuss themselves.

  • MSimon||

    Do you mind?

  • AdamJ||

    OT but I had to post. A chum from high school posted on Facebook today that the European refugee crisis is partially due to global warming. That is all.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Of course. Much of the chaos in the region is due to global warming (and the lack of jobs, which is also largely due to global warming). Duh.

  • Lee G||

    Deputy Dan should get his ass kicked

  • np||

    Assuming he didn't carry on campus other students should have jumped his ass n the name of justice.

  • np||

    The judge should also get her ass kicked.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Here we go again.

  • Gene||

    Even though I believe they would make some fine organic mulch, I would be ok with them both losing their positions and perhaps having to sell their homes to pay for a civil settlement.

  • Atanarjuat||

    And being chased from town by a feces-flinging gang of baboons.

  • DenverJ||

    Wonderful fucking country we got going on, here.

  • ATXChappy||

    I keep hearing that it's 'exceptional'. But, didn't understand what they where talking about until now.

  • ||

    'exceptional'

    Exceptional cognitive dissonance. Land of the Free......to obey.

  • R C Dean||

    We are exceptional these days mostly for what we have lost: A constitutional republic of limited enumerated powers. Practically no one else has ever had what we used to have, so practically no one else even had the opportunity to throw it away.

    USA! USA!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    And I'm proud to be and American
    Where at least I know I'm free kinda, sorta, more than other places but not the way it used to be, free
    And I won't forget the men who died
    Who gave that right to me

  • MJBinAL||

    "And I won't forget the men who died
    Who gave that right to me"

    I have always hated that song. I was under the impression that the guys who founded this country believed that we already HAD our rights, either via natural law and/or via God. So these guys who fought, fought to defend rights we already had. They did not GIVE us those rights.

  • Derpetologist||

    Behold the high editorial standards at MSLSD:

    Clinton said gun violence in general is a problem, but that it’s especially distributing when it comes from someone in authority, like police officers, who should be held to a higher standard.

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hil.....snbc-forum

  • LemonMender||

    For once they tell the truth about Fast and Furious.

  • Ted S.||

    Of course, they meant that it's especially despairing.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Despairingly.

  • Juice||

    Equal should always be followed by distribute in the MSNBC spell checker.

  • sarcasmic||

    OT:

    Two Louisiana city marshals are charged with shooting dead a six-year-old autistic boy when they fired 18 bullets at the car his father was driving

    Jeremy Mardis, six, was shot dead by state marshals on Tuesday night
    Autistic boy was in the passenger seat of his father Chris Few's vehicle
    Cops were believed to be trying to issue a warrant when they opened fire
    As many as 18 bullets were fired, with five hitting Jeremy
    One of the officers was wearing a body camera and captured the shooting and horrific aftermath
    'That little boy was buckled in the front seat of that vehicle and that is how he died,' Col. Mike Edmonson said. 'He didn't deserve to die like that'
    Few is heavily sedated, unable to talk and has bullet fragments lodged in his brain and lung

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....c-boy.html

    I'm pleasantly shocked.

  • DenverJ||

    Yeah I was just getting ready to post the link. What do you bet they stay outta prison? Side bets on whether they keep their jobs. Also, how do you think the deputies in the jail treat them, as opposed to other prisoners?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Speaking of the body camera footage that was recovered from the officers, he said: 'It is the most disturbing thing I've seen, and I will leave it at that

    Wow.

  • Juice||

    Speaking of body, is that the only pic of the fiance they could find?

  • Dey Turk Er Jurbs||

    Beat me to it as well. I'm glad to see something MAY come of it, but I won't hold my breath. Especially after the jury in Pennsylvania let that murderous Mearkle off. But it's a start. Must be some pretty bad shit on the body cam footage.

  • ATXChappy||

    I'll be pleasantly shocked if they get a conviction. But, I don't have high hopes after watching the taser video from Pennsylvania yesterday. If they couldn't get a conviction with that video, I don't think it's possible.

  • ||

    My prediction is they will be acquitted, assuming the case even goes to trial. They will not spend a day in jail. They will not pay a dime in restitution. They will be employed, if not with the same agency, somewhere else within 18 months.

    Oh, and I hope the child's family rapes the living shit out of the taxpayers.

  • ||

    correction. They might spend some time in jail, like after the arrest, but no prison.

  • ATXChappy||

    We had a cop get manslaughter charges dropped in Austin a week or two ago, He went all Starsky and Hutch (he literally hijacked a car to chase this guy down) 2 years ago and ended up 'accidentally' shooting a guy in the back of the neck under a bridge. They dropped the charges because he was on a federal task force. And, apparently that gives him immunity from ANY state charges. So, yea, they will go to jail and have to post bond. But, in a little more than two years, they will walk one way on another. They don't seem to even be trying to make it look legit anymore. I mean, they are literally saying you can't charge him because he's a deputized federal marshal. Which is about as close to FYTW as you can get without actually saying it. I'm starting to fell like Yakov Smirnoff over here, "What a country".

  • croaker||

    More correctly, any state charges have to be tried in federal court. Which is a useless exercise.

  • croaker||

    This is the "aggressive policing" mentioned by the FBI director that will no longer happen due to the "Ferguson Effect" and YouTube. Right.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    They'll be acquitted. But I do appreciate them being charged at the very least.

  • See Double You||

    I'm glad they were arrested, at least, and that their mugshots exist for everyone to see.

  • Rhywun||

    When I saw the mugshots this morning I thought they were gangbangers. And I was right.

  • R C Dean||

    I'll give one in three odds that his father is charged with felony murder.

  • DenverJ||

    I didn't even think of that nasty little possibility. I won't take that bet.

  • MJBinAL||

    more like two in three odds

    The only justice will be if the police officers neighbors were to shun him. None of the teachers or students speak to his children, his wife finds no one will talk to her, and, if they go to church, no one will in the pew with them, in front of them or behind them.

    And even this, is too much to hope for.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It has since emerged that in October, 2011, Lt. Derrick Stafford was indicted by a Rapides Parish grand jury on two counts of aggravated rape, reports KATC - the station says it is waiting for records to see exactly how it was resolved.
    The station also reported he has five pending civil lawsuits involving him in Avoyelles Parish and Norris Greenhouse Jr. was also named in several of the suits.

    A pair of America's finest.

  • croaker||

    They're not police officers.

    They're process servers with guns and an overdeveloped sense of self-importance.

  • Juice||

    Whoa. Dad and kid were white? Did not expect that.

    And the cops were prosec...OH!

  • RAHeinlein||

    Interesting that this is a front-page story on BBC - but limited mainstream coverage in the US.

  • Ted S.||

    Their own cops violating people's rights wouldn't get such attention.

  • Agammamon||

    As far as the British government are concerned, their own people *don't have* rights, only privileges.

    That's why they'll, seriously, no shit arrest you for saying mean things on Twitter. Why, until a couple of days ago, their *council governments* - basically municipal government, no matter how small a municipality - had real, no shit, authority to spy, including surveillance and wiretapping with no higher oversight.

    I think they pay even less lip service to warrant requirements than the US federal government does.

  • croaker||

    By and large mainstream media are copsuckers.

  • Derpetologist||

    I watched part of Maddow's Team Blue freak show last night. Here's a clip of Sanders weighing in on guns:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llYzikgzHIM

    Get your gun grabber bingo card handy because he hits every talking point.

    O'Malley was asked whether we should spend money on high speed rail or a mission to mars. His answer was "I reject your false choice; why not both?" I think he may have been joking. He was also asked what was the most useless piece of clothing he owns, which is a kilt.

    I can't remember anything Clinton said. I was expecting Maddow to start making out with her any second.

  • Ted S.||

    I presume they didn't ask the sort of gotcha questions they posed to Team Red.

  • R C Dean||

    "Can you tell us why you are making gun control, a policy with a long history of being rejected by voters, an important part of your campaign?"

  • Juice||

    I was flipping through and caught a minute of Clinton. All I saw was her babbling off a list of vague, disconnected talking points reminiscent of Alex Baldwin at the end of Team America. She sounded like shit without saying anything. I guess she's the front runner.

  • MJBinAL||

    Naa, Clinton gets it on with Huma

  • gphx||

    I liked Rachel Maddow a lot better back when she played Kevin Arnold on The Wonder Years.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    So...this Deputy Dan is a drug dealer who contributed to the delinquency of a minor?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    This is why we need private prosecutions.

  • ||

    Thank god this was California instead of Texas, right progressives?

  • Juice||

    Or Louisiana, whatever.

  • Juice||

    Oops, sorry. Thought we were still on the 6 year old kid being murdered topic.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    OT -

    In one corner, wiping his ass with the First Amendment, we have Barack "you can keep your plan" Obama and his health-care contraceptive mandate.

    In the other corner, facing around $75 in annual fines if they don't violate their consciences and give their employees "free" birth control, and whose claim to exemption is denied because they refused to fill in the correct form, is an order of nuns whose mission it is to serve the elderly.

    They will face off in the U.S. Supreme Court in a battle over religious freedom.

    Mother Superior, what do you say about your strategy is vis-a-vis the Obama administration?

    "Well, bless you, honey, our strategy is this."

  • See Double You||

    Related to Obamacare, my mother just informed me her monthly premium is now $297 and will be increasing again shortly, at which point it makes more sense for her to just pay the penalty. She makes about $25K a year.

    Obamacare: the gift that keeps on shitting.

  • Atanarjuat||

    I'll be paying the penalty next year, too. I'm relatively young and very healthy, so Obamacare is (ostensibly) designed for people like me to pay in, bringing the rates down for older and less healthy folks, but fuck that.

  • See Double You||

    My mom would be in the latter demographic, as she's in her sixties and suffers from chronic myofascial pain. So Obamacare doesn't even work as advertised. Surprise, surprise.

  • Juice||

    Holy fuck. Is that with the subsidy?

  • See Double You||

    I believe so, as the ACA navigator with whom she met advised her that, in her situation, she would be better off paying the penalty.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Mother, may I?

    Despite long-running efforts by the National Rifle Association and other lobbying groups to persuade Americans otherwise, there is clear empirical evidence with mass shootings that armed civilians don't stop bad guys with guns. The question now is whether the looser gun laws pushed by the NRA and others also prevent the police from doing so.

    The real tragedy is that the police are restrained , however slightly, from gunning down any armed civilian they might encounter.

  • R C Dean||

    there is clear empirical evidence with mass shootings that armed civilians don't stop bad guys with guns.

    I'm not sure how you gather evidence about law abiding armed citizens responding to shooters in . . . wait for it . . . gun-free zones.

  • Sevo||

    "there is clear empirical evidence with mass shootings that armed civilians don't stop bad guys with guns."

    Logically, this is on a par with proving Russian Roulette is perfectly safe by interviewing the guys who played.

  • ||

    "Logically, this is on a par with proving Russian Roulette is perfectly safe by interviewing the guys who played."

    This was my first thought too - I thought of that school shooting in Texas where a couple of shots were fired and the Principal shut the whole situation down with the gun he kept in his car.

    When mass shootings *fail* to happen, they don't exactly make national news.

  • See Double You||

    Then that would make cops worthless, too, then.

  • DenverJ||

    Worse than useless. They won't go rushing in, and they prevent anyone with more balls from doing it either.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    And if an armed civilian does stop a bad guy, it might not become a mass shooting.

  • ||

    there is clear empirical evidence with mass shootings that armed civilians don't stop bad guys with guns.

    How many mass shootings are there in the US every year? A dozen... maybe?

    I suppose it just isn't worth considering whether armed civilians stop bad guys in the thousands of smaller incidents that occur every year. Those are unimportant.

  • Juice||

    And it's not a mass shooting if someone stops it.

  • Agammamon||

    Apparently it only counts if the shooter gets to kill 4 or 5 people before he's stopped.

  • Juice||

    The real tragedy is that the police are restrained , however slightly, from gunning down any armed civilian they might encounter.

    Tamir Rice proves that's not the case.

  • Derpetologist||

    In case you were wondering the name of the asshole cop, it is Daniel Zipperstein.

    On the dept's recruitment web page, it says "serve the public, safeguard lives and property, protect the innocent and weak"

    http://www.joinrsd.org/

  • Derpetologist||

    Asshole cop is briefly visible from behind in this clip:
    https://youtu.be/8af0QPhJ22s?t=17s

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Here he is in a recent TV appearance.

  • ||

    I suppose the Police Union wants to win this case for the Zipper.

  • np||

    Related cuz' high school.Something to take your mind of these nut punches. Reposting this since it was buried in one of Agile's acid trips on halloween.

    Commercial showcasing the transformative power of Shiseido makeup:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n3Db6pMQ-8

    Pause at 1:00 before they get into the before and after segment and see if you could guess how much of a difference there was. I didn't it cut it for the first and somewhat for the last girl

  • R C Dean||

    Alright, that's, umm, wow.

    I caught on fairly early for the students, but the teacher outside the door somehow surprised me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That they'll use undercover police officers to target students--at upper middle-class schools--is reason #384 to home school.

    ...not to mention end the Drug War. For those who think the Drug War is just about going after poor black and Latino kids, think again. Temecula is Soccer Mom Central.

    "According to a 2007 estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $75,335, and the median income for a family was $80,836."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Temecula,_California#2000

    No doubt, the burden of the Drug War is disproportionately borne by minorities and the poor, but no one is immune.

    Actually, when I listen to progressives talk about this stuff, their "solution" to racial disparity isn't to end the drug war. It's to spread the heavy handed injustice around so wealthy whites feel the pain in equal proportion. That's reason #783 why progressives are America's most horrible people.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Another one

    It is impossible to answer such what-ifs with certainty. What is increasingly clear is the illogic in many of the arguments advanced by opponents of sensible regulation of guns. The claim that open-carry laws provide an effective deterrent to would-be attackers and criminals was undermined not only by the events in Colorado Springs but also by the testimony of police chiefs across the country who say such laws place added burdens on law enforcement. It is simple nonsense to liken the damage that can be caused by a knife — or baseball bat or whatever other weapon the gun lobby feebly offers up as an alternative — to the lethal capacities of guns.

    Many factors contribute to violence. Investigations into these incidents will provide more information about the men who went on the attack in Colorado (a 33-year-old ) and California (an 18-year-old ) and specifically whether — as has been the case in so many tragedies — mental illness played a role. What should not get lost in that examination is the difference in damage that was done with a knife. That underscores once again the need for this country to follow the lead of other countries in limiting guns and controlling who has access to them.

    I'm so ashamed. My freedom places an undue burden on policemen.

    How selfish of me.

  • Rhywun||

    Rule #1 of Fascist Club is always disarm your enemies.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    sensible regulation of guns
    Shall not be infringed
  • See Double You||

    Suicidepactlivingdocument

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Articlefivechangeaway

  • See Double You||

    I explained that to Joe in the wake of that derpy Washington Post editorial. It didn't end well for him.

  • ||

    to follow the lead

    I was triggered.

  • See Double You||

    OT: Big businesses back affirmative action before U.S. Supreme Court

    Three major companies, citing the under-representation of minorities in science and technology fields, are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in university admissions in a closely watched case to be argued next month.

    Still trying to figure out how leftists and big business are mortal enemies.

  • DJF||

    Same here, every time someone traces the money trail to the left, big business is one of the major funding sources. That and foundations set up by the rich.

  • See Double You||

    Elizabeth Warren, the paragon of consumer-protection advocacy, supports subsidizing Big Business via the Ex-Im Bank. And she otherwise seems genuine in her support of consumers (not that I necessarily think that consumer-oriented laws are wise or just).

    #continouslyperplexed

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    I don't think she supports Big Business as much as she thinks government should pick winners & losers in the market and Ex-Im is one more way to do so.

  • Juice||

    WTF? Those corporations must be looking for some kind of tax break or subsidy for filling some race/gener quota or something.

  • ||

    No, they just want access to a larger labor pool.

    A while back some Australian business mogul or something admitted that obvious fact -- the ensuing freakout was funny.

  • ||

    Actually I shouldn't say "just" -- there is a PR benefit as well, and some tech execs believe in the cause on an ideological level.

  • RAHeinlein||

    They want access to a labor pool that meets THEIR affirmative action and, as you stated, PR goals. Eliminating affirmative action at the University level would dramatically impact business "diversity" initiatives.

  • Juice||

    That was my thought. And they only have these initiatives for PR reasons or maybe for tax/subsidy reasons.

  • Juice||

    No, they just want access to a larger labor pool.

    But...the labor pool stays the same size, just the race/gender mix is a little different.

  • Derpetologist||

    Somewhat related: yesterday on crazy socon radio, there was a report that deaths from drug overdoses last year exceeded deaths from car accidents and guns. Although they briefly mentioned these deaths were entirely from prescription drugs and heroin, they immediately blamed it on the partial legalization marijuana because something something gateway drug.

  • Ken Shultz||

    On the left, they blame the overdoses on global warming and George W. Bush.

  • Derpetologist||

    O'Malley was asked at the forum yesterday if he thought a draft and/or a war tax was a good idea. He said the draft should stay dead, but a war tax might be good, and then he quickly launched into a rant about how BOOOOSH the Unclean lead is into a war based on lies, blahblahblah.

    The softball question to end all softball questions:
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma.....1364547690

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    When I was younger and could handle such things, I used to play "Listen to left-wing and right-wing radio for 10 minutes each, and hear who said the derpier things. Right-wing would win far more than I originally expected.

    And somehow I expect their numbers are sourced from their own asses.

  • John||

    To me there are few things less conservative than the assumption that it is somehow my or anyone's responsibility to save people from themselves. I am sorry to hear about those overdoses but they are entirely the responsibility of the people who suffered them.

    Conservatives can't ever seem to understand that drugs are not special. They are no different than any other vice or self destructive behavior. So when conservative buy into the assumption that it is the government's responsibility to save drug addicts from their vice, they have given away the argument that it is not the government's responsibility to save people from every other vice. Conservatives hate drugs and think we should save people from killing themselves with it. That is nice. Progs hate guns and big sodas and fatty foods and think the same thing about those vices. Who are the conservatives to say the Progs are wrong about that?

  • See Double You||

    The worst part is that a great number of conservatives would side with progressives on soda taxes and maybe even gun control if those conservatives suddenly valued logical consistency.

  • John||

    In fairness they are logically consistent. They honestly believe that drugs are special and different from guns or sodas. They think drugs somehow deprive people of their rationality and free will and thus are a different kind of vice than other things. They really believe that using drugs somehow transforms otherwise rational and hardworking people against those people's will.

    Their problem is not logical consistency. Their problem is they are totally delusional about the nature of drugs and drug use.

  • lap83||

    There's also consistency in the fact that welfare effectively subsidizes many people's vices. That said, I think getting rid of those programs would be much more effective in the long run to reducing those lifestyles than the drug war. But conservatives don't hold politicians accountable in that regard. Part of the problem is that drug war rhetoric is more palatable to politicians than doing anything about welfare or entitlements.

  • See Double You||

    If other developed countries have taught us anything, it's that entitlements aren't going anywhere until it is literally impossible to keep paying them.

  • John||

    I always ask conservative drug warriors if they use drugs. And the answer is of course no. Then I ask them if drugs were legal would you use them then. And the answer is always no. So then I ask them what is so special about them. If they wouldn't turn into a degenerate drug user if drugs were legal, why do they think everyone else would. They never really have a good response to that question.

    The drug warriors view of drugs being different from vices like food is completely at odds with the reality that tens of millions of people in this country have tried even the hardest drugs and even been recreational users but have never become addicts and likely stopped using at some point as they realized they had better things to do than be stoned all of the time. If drugs really were different, those people would have all become addicts.

  • Derpetologist||

    Behold the mental prowess of elite rocket surgeon Martin O'Malley:

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma.....1414723684

  • geo1113||

    Wile E. Coyote...Suuuuper Genius

  • The Late P Brooks||

    From the comments on an Economist article about campus carry:

    I'm not sure why anyone would trust a bunch of liquored up teenagers with guns. These aren't "law abiding citizens", they're college students going through a period of profound personal change that is often times accompanied by extreme emotional upheaval.

    It's nice to know what the progressives really think.

  • See Double You||

    Yeah, prohibiting OC on campus will certainly prevent "liquored-up" teens from acquiring guns to use for their liquored-up purposes.

  • Derpetologist||

    To me, the funniest part is they acknowledge that they can't stop the students from getting alcohol illegally, but think that they can somehow stop them from carrying guns illegally.

    Gun-free zones are the prog version of abstinence-only sex-ed.

  • Derpetologist||

    A fun way to respond to such idiots: I saw a movie once where only the cops and the military had guns. It's called Schindler's List.

    It's guaranteed to make them sputter with rage.

  • geo1113||

    Love it. Can't wait to use it.

  • MJBinAL||

    yes, me too.

  • Rhywun||

    extreme emotional upheaval

    In pre-snowflake America, this was considered a time for maturing and grappling with the real world. Now it's "OMG I just can't even!"

  • Microaggressor||

    How long before the age of majority is legally increased to 26? Obama already got the ball rolling.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The American people think this is ok.

  • See Double You||

    When the People are evil, what are we to do?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Drink

  • Gene||

    THIS.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dear Aliens, you should probably nuke it before we figure out space travel.

  • GILMORE™||

    I forgot about this story from years ago...

    ...but, as Crusty seems to have noted = the cop GAVE the kid the money to buy weed?

    It would seem to me that to "bust" someone for purchasing drugs, one of the most important elements of establishing 'criminal intent' is that they actually use their own money. It would seem that "buying something for someone else, with someone else's money" is an entirely different act where the intent is simply to act as a 'courier' for the agent.

    I'd think this would be a legal distinction somewhere...if not in the actual letter of the law re: drugs

  • Microaggressor||

    Yeah, but fuck you.

  • GILMORE™||

    I do appreciate the current State Argument, but i was thinking of something more along the lines of actual legal analysis. We have a number of lawyers here.

  • Agammamon||

    That *is* the pinnacle of modern legal analysis.

  • Scalro Humillimus||

    Of course it isn't. Some jurisdictions also criminalize paraphernalia and decree possession over a certain amount is intention to distribute. After all, drugs are bad.

  • John||

    http://www.the-american-intere.....s-in-2016/

    Three million refugees expected in Europe next year. Funny how Reason has had virtually nothing to say about this rather important world story. The reason for this is that Libertarianism can't account for or explain what is happening because it can't account for collective action outside of government. Here we have say the Swedish who are going along minding their own business and one day a few million Muslims decide they are going to move in and make the place an Islamic state. And if the Swedish don't like that, too bad for them. The Muslims will out number them and just collectively enforce their will on them. :Libertarianism can't account for such collective action. The Swedish by Libertarian standards have a moral obligation to let anyone who wants into the country. The injustice of a group of outsiders coming in and transforming the Swedes' country without their consent is not something Libertarianism can explain or offer any answers. This is because Libertarianism assumes everyone is a radical individualist and cannot explain or account for the reality that virtually no one is. People may not have to be a product of their culture but they almost always are. Sweden is different from Pakistan because the people who live there are collectively different. Populate Sweden with enough Pakistanis and it will no longer be Sweden, it will be Pakistan.

  • John||

    The other big story Reason ignored for as long as possible only to write a single "we just can't figure out what this all means" story posted at midnight on a weekend was Rotherham. Again, Reason being Libertarians could not account for or explain why it is that Pakistanis living in Britain as a group like to rape girls. Everyone is supposed to be an individual, except they are not. Pakistanis are not like the English. They come from a culture where raping a young girl, especially a non Muslim one, is totally fine. So if you let a bunch of them into your country, you better figure some young girls are going to get raped. Libertarianism can't explain or account for that reality.

  • ||

    "Pakistanis are not like the English. They come from a culture where raping a young girl, especially a non Muslim one, is totally fine. So if you let a bunch of them into your country, you better figure some young girls are going to get raped. Libertarianism can't explain or account for that reality."

    Pakistanis don't come from a culture where raping young girls is "just fine." Yes they come from culture that doesn't see such behavior as being quite as deviant as western European cultures do (although Sweden also has a bit a problem, no?).

    This doesn't mean that Pakistanis are collectively guilty of gang rape and should be forbidden entry into the country because they're Pakistani. It means rapists should be punished whether or not they are Pakistani.

  • John||

    It doesn't mean they are "collectively guilty" whatever that means. It does however mean that if you allow a large number of them to immigrate to your country, you are going to have a rape problem. As a Libertarian you can't admit that. You can't even fathom why it is true. But it is. If there had never been any Pakistanis let into Britain, Rotherham or anything like it would have never occurred.

    If understanding that reality and acting accordingly is "collectively judging" Pakistanis, then no collectively judging them is living in denial of reality.

  • ||

    "As a Libertarian you can't admit that. You can't even fathom why it is true."

    That's an odd thing to say.

    First, I am not a Libertarian, and have never claimed to be. But why in Sam Hell would being a Libertarian render me unable to understand why allowing Pakistani immigration would cause a rape problem?

    What are you actually trying to argue? That Pakistanis should be denied entry to any given country based on the fact that they are more prone to raping? And that anyone who disagrees with that just can't understand that Pakistanis are more culturally prone to raping?

    Or are you arguing that individualism intellectually can't account for cultural differences between people in a manner that allows them to rationally determine what cultures should be allowed to immigrate and which shouldn't?

  • John||

    That Pakistanis should be denied entry to any given country based on the fact that they are more prone to raping?

    Depends on what you want. If you don't mind your country becoming more like Pakistan, then let as many as want to come. If you do mind it, then yeah, you can't let large numbers of them in. The reality is just that harsh and that simple. Yes, lots of individual Pakistanis who would never have caused a problem can now no longer come in. But, that just sucks for them. It doesn't change the reality that if you allow large numbers of them in, you are going to have a rape problem. There is no magic way to only let the nice ones in.

  • ||

    I get what you're saying, but I think the fundamental disconnect that you are having with the Libertarian point of view is that there is any "letting" to be done.

    You seem comfortable identifying with a collective that "owns" the country and has a right to "let people in" or not. I don't think most Libertarians would necessarily agree, as the further consequences of that collective's existence and power outweigh the perceived benefits (to Libertarians).

    I think it actually comes down to a question of risk assessment. On the Mexican question, for example, I have never been convinced that opening the border would lead to any net change in current immigration from Mexico whatsoever. People want to come here, and they do. The fact that more people don't is due to more people not wanting to.

    More Pakistanis going to place x does not necessarily make place x "more like Pakistan." First, geographical Pakistan and Sweden, for example, couldn't be more different, and geography and culture are closely related.

    Second, Pakistanis who are going to pick up and leave Pakistan to settle in Sweden in all likelihood are looking to get away from Pakistan and go to Sweden. If they *liked* Pakistan, they would stay.

    It's also worth mentioning that Britain (where Rotherham is) has a particular history with Pakistan that makes the issues of Pakistani immigration to Britain sticky and complicated - it is a post-colonial problem, not a "people showing up for no reason" problem.

  • ||

    Hebdo disclaimer: this doesn't excuse rape or make the Rotherham situation not despicable. It's just not a paradigm for looking at immigration generally speaking.

  • John||

    Yes I am totally comfortable with people having collective sovereignty and having governments that enforce that sovereignty by not allowing other people to come in. And yes, Libertarians are not comfortable with that. And that is my entire point. The only solution for the Swedes and the Germans if they want to keep their country as it is, is to assert that right and stop these people from coming. The Germans and the Swedes can either stop the migrants or understand they are no longer going to live in the country they have now. Libertarians, by denying them the right to control their borders, are telling them that migrants get to come in and transform their country into something completely alien over the objection of the people who live there and there isn't a single thing they can or should do about it.

  • ||

    "Libertarians, by denying them the right to control their borders, are telling them that migrants get to come in and transform their country into something completely alien over the objection of the people who live there and there isn't a single thing they can or should do about it."

    I think you should know Libertarians well enough that the tying the phrase "denying them the right" to Libertarians should give you pause.

    Fundamental question:

    Where are these migrants staying while they "transform the country?"

  • John||

    Sorry but the "property rights unicorn" doesn't answer the mail here. It does no good for me to say they can't come onto my property if they still come to someone else' property. And even if you prevent the government for forcing people to accept them, it will have no effect since someone will and they will be in the country.

    You either let the government stop them from coming at all or you understand they are going to change the country into something else. The choice are that stark. They are not going to choose to stop coming and they are not going to magically transform into Swedes.

  • ||

    Property rights are not a unicorn - they are fundamental to any stable economy.

    "even if you prevent the government for forcing people to accept them, it will have no effect since someone will and they will be in the country"

    So, it sounds like what you are saying is that you want to dictate what *other* people do with *their* property, and that *you* should be able to say that *I'm* not allowed to take in Syrian refugees because *you* don't like their culture and are worried that that *your* town is going to be culturally changed.

    Am I getting that wrong?

  • John||

    Property rights are not a unicorn - they are fundamental to any stable economy.

    Those rights are real. You pretending that property rights that prevent invasions are what are unicorns. And you seem to not know if you want to be a anarchist or not. You claim to be a libertarian yet deny the legitimacy of governments to take any actions.

    And property rights, without a government to enforce them, are only as good as your ability to hold them. Your property rights only exist insofar as you or the sheriff can keep me from taking them. Like many Libertarians you can't seem to understand that rights are meaningless without the ability to enforce them and that in addition to taking rights, government also enforce rights so you don't have to.

  • ||

    From my 1:24 post above: "First, I am not a Libertarian, and have never claimed to be."

    When did we start talking about invasions? I thought we were talking about immigration? If these people are going to come take my property, yes the government should stop them.

    Where are the goalposts here? I keep losing them.

  • R C Dean||

    Pakistanis don't come from a culture where raping young girls is "just fine." Yes they come from culture that doesn't see such behavior as being quite as deviant as western European cultures do

    Point taken from John for hyperbole, but I take his basic position as being validated. I would say that, given what we hear, that various Paki groups are quite tolerant of rape, so "not quite as deviant" is also understating, I think.

    (although Sweden also has a bit a problem, no?).

    Umm, yeah, mostly from Muslim immigrants.

  • ||

    "Umm, yeah, mostly from Muslim immigrants."

    No - the "violence against women problem" in Sweden has been going for a long time. Whether it's a real "problem" unique to Sweden and not just progressive hand-wringing, I don't know.

    Allow me to relate a brief side-anecdote:

    When I was a younger pup just starting out grad school roughly twenty years ago, I began studying the history of Islam and the Middle East, because I realized that I knew almost nothing about it.

    Back then, it was still completely expected in left-wing academic culture that you would condemn Islam and Islamic cultures for their anti-feminism and horrible treatment of women generally speaking. It was the last culture that was OK for multi-culturalists to hate.

    By the time I finished my thesis in 2004, Islamic cultures had been brought into the fold of "persecuted brown people" and they were no longer to be criticized, but were to be accepted and rationalized.

    This is so much as to say that I do get it to a certain extent. Not all religions are created equal in regard to liberty, and Islam is worse than most in its anti-woman, anti-liberty stances.

    Still, between the poles of "criticize the Muslims never" and "OMG RAPISTS TERRORISTS RAPISTS!1!" is reality, and my personal belief and experience is that non-aggression overcomes aggression more often than not.

  • John||

    The rape problem in the UK and Sweden is not Islamic as much as it is a product of the indigenous cultures of the immigrants' home countries. Not every Muslim country has child marriages and views women as chattel. And Pakistan had those sorts of views long before Islam showed up.

  • ||

    "Not every Muslim country has child marriages and views women as chattel. And Pakistan had those sorts of views long before Islam showed up."

    An excellent point to make - I used to bring this up with Muslim-haters all the time, but have found it's largely pointless. Christianity as practiced in Sudan can be pretty sucky, as well.

    It's also worth pointing out in regards to that point that Pakistan is a huge country, and it makes a difference whether someone grew up in Karachi or in Waziristan.

    My only point being, rape is not something that just didn't exist in Europe before Pakistanis started showing up.

    If we're not denying immigration to Muslims, then who are we denying it to? Pakistanis? Afghans? Does this included Egyptians? Mongols? Not Muslims, but hardly feminists, either. Laotians?

    What standards do we develop to decide which immigrant groups are acceptable based on our evaluation of the culture they are seeking to leave?

  • John||

    Who gets denied is up to the English. How much and of what other cultures they want to absorb is their decision. If they want to deny immigration to everyone, I am fine with that and think doing so is perfectly within their rights as a nation. If they want to let them all in and allow the country to be transformed into Pakistan West, that is their right as well.

    My only point is that it is the English or the Americans or the Swedes' decision. And Libertarians by denying that really can't deal with the situation we have in Europe right now. They can't offer any solutions to it other than, just let your country totally change over your objection because principles demand it.

  • ||

    Why I say that the Pakistani problem in England is not paradigmatic is because Pakistan is a former British possession, just like India, Australia, and Canada.

    Pakistanis in England are not "immigrants" in the same way that, say, Mexicans in California are, or Syrians in Sweden. In fact all three of these groups are fundamentally different.

    What obligations Britain has toward Pakistanis and what rights Pakistanis have to immigrate to Britain, even in a close-borders scenario, is non-simple.

  • John||

    Once Pakistan became a sovereign country in 1948, it became a very simple. Pakistan can't have it both ways. They can't at once claim to be a sovereign and then also claim to still be a colony with immigration rights. And the vast majority of Pakistanis came to the UK well after the 1948 partition of India. England owes the people of Pakistan and India no special treatment when it comes to immigration.

  • ||

    "England owes the people of Pakistan and India no special treatment when it comes to immigration."

    That's a position that can be taken. However, most of the ways in which India and Pakistan are fucked up today can be directly traced to British misrule. And much of the freedom and prosperity still enjoyed by England is the direct result of wealth plundered from India and Pakistan.

    So yes, England could close its borders and say "fuck you, we took what we took and now you're just fucked," but politically and diplomatically its sort of an abrasive stance.

  • John||

    No. Most of the ways those countries are fucked up can be directly traced to the fucked up nature of the people who live there. What you call "misrule" was an improvement on what was there before. Remember, the Muslims conquered the place and committed genocide before the Brits ever got there.

  • ||

    Holy shit, John. I respect you, but sometimes you just go way out and need to reign it in.

    What in Sam Hell are you talking about? Do you know *anything* about the history of India? Do you even *know* who ruled India before the British?

  • ||

    Having gotten over my initial shock, let me be more specific:

    What policies enacted by the EIC were such an improvement on Mughal policies, exactly?

    When did this genocide occur? Are you talking about the Ghazi invasion of 999? That's when Muslims first came, but I know of no genocide. Nor am I aware of any genocide following the Mughal invasion. When did this happen?

  • R C Dean||

    I will freely admit my very limited knowledge of the fine points of Euro history and current conditions (I try to flag this in my posts "given what we hear", etc.).

    I probably shouldn't have used the descriptor "Muslim" to describe the immigrant community in Sweden that sources from MENA. Its shorthand, but not as accurate as it might be. I'll use a different term going forward.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    (although Sweden also has a bit a problem, no?).

    Pat Condell's latest has some info on rapes in Sweden. Including such lovely items as media identifying eight gang rapists (7 Somalis, 1 Iraqi, all immigrants) as "Swedes" or just not reporting gang rapes when committed by immigrants.
    Sweden does have insane rules for reporting rapes, but increase in group, violent rape has nothing to do with it.

  • DJF||

    I think libertarianism does give an answer other then free movement of people, but most don’t agree with me

    They usually claim there is a right for people to move where they want and also claim that government has no right to stop them. But in their world of no government this means that individual or group ownership of land does have the right to stop someone from moving on their land. The only place someone has a right to move is their own property, on anyone elses property they have to get the permission of the property owners. So someone traveling from Syria to Sweden would need the permission of every property owner along the route they took. Instead you see police escorting huge lines of people using public roads and private property without the permission of the collective or individual owners of that property as should occur in a libertarian world

    Without government any person in Sweden could block the use of their property and even organize many to do the same. Yes people do have interests and can work together to stop undesirables from using their property. Sure property owners would be open movement people but now all the costs of inviting someone on your property would be theirs and even getting someone off their property they had previously invited would be a problem since they would need to find someone to take them in or to sell them property.

    cont

  • DJF||

    Cont

    So this means that free movement of people is not a libertarian thing but a socialist thing, it requires government to force the property owners to allow others to use their property and it requires forced creation of common areas where their movement can occur.

    So there is no right to free movement since movement is restricted by property ownership. Its only in our socialist world that some illusion of a right to movement occurs

    But I doubt if I will change any minds because I think they are not based on any fundamentals but on a desire to have something, free movement, and so they want libertarianism to provide it.

  • John||

    That is an interesting way to look at it, except that unless you get everyone to agree, your action on your property doesn't help. Who cares if you and your friends won't let them come in, all it takes is one or two others to say yes and you are left with the same problem.

    The other thing is, if you agree that people can collectively act to protect themselves, then why can't they do that through democratically elected government?

  • DJF||

    """all it takes is one or two others to say yes and you are left with the same problem."""

    Yes it can cause problems but many of the problems first hit the people who invited the problem in, which limits the probabilty of people inviting large numbers. Today many of the people inviting don't pay the cost. Merke, Obama, Bush etc are not going to pay the cost of their invites.

    """then why can't they do that through democratically elected government?""'

    I don't disagree, I am not a extremist, I just take the open borders extremist argument and show that there is no right to movement and saying their is a right is not a libertarian position but a socialist one.

  • John||

    I am generally pro open borders as well. Like every policy, it has its limits. And what is going on in Europe right now is most certainly a limit. Reason loves to spout the open borders line. What they don't like to do is contemplate the limits of that idea. Where it ends, is much harder to determine than just spouting the open borders party line.

    I think it is a shame that Reason has from what I can see ignored what is going on in Europe. It offers a chance to really think about what borders should mean and where the concept of open borders no longer works. And they have passed on that opportunity.

  • ||

    "Reason loves to spout the open borders line. What they don't like to do is contemplate the limits of that idea."

    There is truth to this. I pretty much agree with DJF 100%. The fact that things don't actually work this way is largely what makes this a problem.

    Reason is disappointing on this issue because they like to spout off on easy cases, not tackle difficult ones and explain why their position still applies.

    They are like that on a lot of issues, actually.

  • GILMORE™||

    "The Swedish by Libertarian standards have a moral obligation to let anyone who wants into the country."

    neither here nor there, but i don't think the libertarian argument is a "moral" one so much as an economic one.

    That the free movement of labor allows greater economic flexibility and more productivity.

    I'm sure *someone* has advanced a moral argument for free movement of labor as well... but i'm not sure that was any genesis for the idea.

    The assumption that there can be "No control" whatsoever is also false. Simply that control is generally "loose" in normal conditions. The idea would be that in normal states of affairs you should permit population flows. Obviously if there were some exceptional influx that created crisis there should be a change to the status quo. Without the *capability* for border control i doubt there would be any possibility of any sovereign statehood. Which would be a distinction between a libertarian and anarchist view.

    All of that aside....

    ....john - are Europe's problems our problems?

    If not, why should we give a shit what Europe does or doesn't do re: Migrants?

  • John||

    Gilmore, what you are saying is not unreasonable. It is however at odds with the doctrinaire Libertarian assumptions. And I can tell you from experience the moral argument gets rolled out in every single argument regarding immigration.

    The bigger problem is that once you admit that nations have a collective right to control their borders, you have given away the argument. If they can do it in any cases, then they can do it in all. IT is their country and "we don't want you here" is reason enough, assuming they have a right to control their borders at all.

  • GILMORE™||

    "And I can tell you from experience the moral argument gets rolled out in every single argument regarding immigration."

    That may be so. People roll out "moral" arguments as a first resort all the time, because pathetic-appeal is effective. Who wants to be a "bad person"? That doesn't change the fact that the libertarian endorsement of free-movement of labor is at root an economic argument; if there's a "moral imperative" it would be the freedom of people to *leave* any society...not that *every* other country should be morally bound to accept them.

    ""once you admit that nations have a collective right to control their borders, you have given away the argument.""

    Not really. I think there are certain things that you can call Libertarian Imperatives - the sine qua non of any libertarian political view - and others which you can consider ideal 'norms' within which there are degrees of flexibility.

    Saying that free-movement should be the norm because it produces the best outcomes isn't "ceding the case" to people desire to impose rigorous bureaucratic controls over citizens within their own country (see: Real ID, etc) and so on. One can oppose a wide variety of border control measures without opposing "all" of them. Isn't there a euphemism for this? The "Tall-Fence / Wide-Gate" argument?

  • John||

    See the posts below from RC and I about the incompatibility of some cultures. Free movement is fabulous if everyone who comes in has a culture that it is either the same or comparable with the native culture. If, however, people come in with a culture that is not comparable with the native one, free movement is a nightmare. It means someone has to give up their culture and adopt a new one and that rarely happens peacefully when the two cultures are mutually incompatible.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""the incompatibility of some cultures""

    this is completely separate from the argument you raised about Border Control being an "All Or Nothing proposition" which we were discussing, and isn't an answer to me at all.

    That said - "cultural compatibility" is a theory that strikes me chock full of presumptions about...well, everything. "Culture" is probably the most-used and least-defined word on earth, and I tend to consider anyone who uses it to be falling back on "ambiguity" as a defense because they don't actually know what they're trying to say.

  • John||

    It may be hard to define generally, but culture is easy to define here. When a huge group of people come into your country and demand you give up your traditions and adopt theirs, your cultures are mutually incompatible. Just because you can't always define culture or ever perfectly define it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or you cannot see it when it does.

    The Muslims coming to Europe are coming there with the intention of making Europe into a Muslim society and ending Europe's secular western culture. Either they have to give up on that idea or Europe as we know it has to die.

  • GILMORE™||

    "The Muslims coming to Europe are coming there with the intention of making Europe into a Muslim society"

    lol

    what i said about "presumptions?" In glorious display.

    Its remarkable that you seem to completely discount any reasons they are leaving an already "Muslim Society" in record numbers.

    These words "society" and "culture" are just loaded with enormous ranges of presumptions that you fail to even name. Until you get specific and make a claim about what they're trying to "create" that they didn't already have and are obviously abandoning.... forget it. Its not an argument.

  • See Double You||

    I'm not certain either way, Gilmore. Many muslim immigrants are like California expats: they created the failed state from which they're fleeing, yet they lack the self-awareness required to avoid lobbying for the very policies in the new state that caused the old one to fail.

  • ||

    "they created the failed state from which they're fleeing"

    Which state in the Middle East was created by Muslims?

  • GILMORE™||

    "Which state in the Middle East was created by Muslims?'

    +1 Sykes Picot

  • See Double You||

    By "created the state" I don't mean they legally created the sovereign borders that constitute the modern nation-state. Progressives didn't exactly so create California, either. I was referring to when their respective cultures became dominant enough to alter the policy direction of their respective states, a phenomenon which isn't entirely reducible to a specific point in time.

  • ||

    The sovereign borders and the non-participation of the citizens in creating them, though, is a huge, maybe even primary, cause of the troubles in the ME today.

    Syria has been a powder keg waiting for a spark since 1918. The capital of the country, Antioch, was carved out and ceded to Turkey at the last minute by the French, Lebanon was made separate so that it would be majority Catholic (also a demand of the French), and Jordan and Palestine were separated out, and then thirty years later a non-viable part of Palestine was granted to a different and ultimately hostile group of people (i.e. Israel).

    Syria was denied its most significant city and its only real port, and was reduced to smaller satellite cities and Bedouin-inhabited wildernesses. "Places" that had developed within the larger Ottoman Empire over the centuries, like Kurdistan, had international borders drawn right through them. Then those borders, which were unmaintainable in every instance, were declared sacred and inviolable by the UN.

    It is not "their culture" that led to what is happening in Syria today. This was foreseeable, and was foreseen a long, long time ago. The Western powers (with the exception of the US) just decided they didn't care.

  • John||

    Gilmore,

    Show me a single piece of evidence that indicates the Muslims coming to Europe right now are demanding anything other than it be a Muslim society? I can of course give you hundreds of examples of Muslims bluntly saying they are doing just that.

    What is happening here is you are giving a glorious display of how Libertarians cannot contemplate collective action that doesn't involve government. You deny that Muslims are coming to do that because in your world view no group ever acts collectively. Every group is just a bunch of individuals who could in no way ever have any kind of collective purpose or intent or effect unless they are doing it through government. Sorry, but life isn't like that. Sometimes people do act collectively. And this is most certainly one of those times.

  • GILMORE™||

    Shifting the burden?

    The only proof i need is to observe that these people are fleeing a "Muslim Society" and not choosing to flee to some *other* "Muslim Society"...rather, are fleeing to the Secular West for obvious economic and political reasons, nothing to do with any collective intent for Cultural Imperialism

    You are free to anecdote away, but you're wasting your breath

  • John||

    Gilmore,

    You know how to use google as well as I do. Go and look and you will find film after film of the Muslims saying they are doing just that. There is my proof. What proof do you have they are lying other than that is what your ideology tells you must be the truth?

  • GILMORE™||

    delicious cherries of bias-confirmation

  • John||

    And since when do you bear no burden to show any evidence to support your assertions? You assert the Muslims entering Europe have no intention of changing it into a Muslim dominated place. Where is your proof of that? You have none and expect everyone to take it at face value because you are a Libertarian and the default assumption is always that there is no such thing as collective action other than the government.

    Again, you are giving a glorious display of what I am talking about.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""You assert the Muslims entering Europe have no intention of changing it into a Muslim dominated place.""

    I don't ascribe theoretical "intentions" to disparate populations

    I look at data showing behavior. The behavior shows they're leaving muslim societies and migrating to western-secular ones.

    if the priority was "culture", they'd migrate to some other muslim society. they're not.

    You think there's some Cultural Conquista going on? fine. I'll accept *that's what you believe*. I don't think a few million ragheads are going to Islamify Europe even remotely beyond the few neighborhoods they re-locate to. See my point about "Little Somethings" in NYC.

  • John||

    I don't ascribe theoretical "intentions" to disparate populations

    Yes, you are utterly incapable of comprehending the reality that people can have collective intentions and effects outside of government. This is why you are giving such a glorious example of the Libertarian blind spot on open borders I spoke about in my first post. Keep it up. I could never explain this kind of idiocy as well as you are demonstrating it.

    I look at data showing behavior. The behavior shows they're leaving muslim societies and migrating to western-secular ones.

    Which says nothing about their intentions once they get there. You just assume they don't like the Muslim aspects of their society because you want to think that is how it is. There is nothing that says they don't love the Muslim aspects of their society and just like the money and jobs available in Europe. Indeed, time and again, they keep saying exactly that. But you ignore it because you can't accept any evidence that doesn't fit your ideology.

  • GILMORE™||

    Sure, john.

    You still never got around to explaining

    ""why should we give a shit what Europe does or doesn't do re: Migrants?""

  • See Double You||

    So the U.S. doesn't follow suit?*

    *while I think John's point is reasonable, I don't really agree with it.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""'So the U.S. doesn't follow suit?*""

    Given that John's case seems to centrally rely on the idea that =

    "the current wave of muslim immigrants are intending to turn Europe into a "Muslim Society" (rather than simply live as they see fit in a pluralist free-society)

    ...this thing about "the US following suit" would have to presume that any & all immigrants to the US are doing so for the very same 'cultural imperialist' reasons.

    which seems to take an already shaky-as-hell-projection-of-motivations onto one group.... and conveniently applying to everyone else in the world who happens to want to relocate themselves.

    My own view of the 'reasonableness' breaks down exactly above @13:43, when the KulturKampf theorizing begins.

  • John||

    It is obvious why we should care. Do they have a right to close the borders or don't they? If they don't, then we don't either. That is the point of discussing this. It is not about caring about the fate of Europe. That is up to them. The point of the discussion is what that fate says about strict libertarian principles.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Do they have a right to close the borders or don't they? If they don't, then we don't either."

    A "right" to close the borders?

    Europe, or any individual country in Europe, is free to do whatever the fuck they want and it says nothing about US policy or libertarian principles, "strict" or not.

    "should they"? that's up to them.

    We've already noted that there is no "all or nothing" principle regarding immigration policy.

    (e.g. " One can oppose a wide variety of border control measures without opposing "all" of them. Isn't there a euphemism for this? The "Tall-Fence / Wide-Gate" argument?"")

    Libertarian support for free movement of labor has little/nothing to do with whether Europe accepts some, none, or all Syrian refugees... or anyone else. Its their call and has little impact on me or you as US citizens. I suppose it would "be nice" if the wanted to, and probably in their longer term best interests... but i think the loosening of labor-markets already implemented in the formation of the EU economic-sphere was probably as "libertarian" a move as anyone should expect

  • R C Dean||

    Obviously if there were some exceptional influx that created crisis there should be a change to the status quo. Without the *capability* for border control i doubt there would be any possibility of any sovereign statehood.

    Pretty much where I am. When you hear that the Germans are dumping over 700 migrants on a town of 150, I think you've got a crisis on your hands.

  • ||

    "When you hear that the Germans are dumping over 700 migrants on a town of 150, I think you've got a crisis on your hands."

    Yes - but as DJF argues pretty coherently above, that's not *really* a freedom of movement situation. That's the government confiscating people's property and forcibly relocating a new population to the area.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't think you can divorce it from "freedom of movement" quite so easily.

    The situation arises directly from a lack of government restriction on freedom of movement of migrants into the country. Absent the libertopian situation described elsewhere, where nobody can move anywhere without the consent of all private landowners along their route, you are going to have these migrants at your border, and once you let them in, they are going to wind up somewhere.

  • ||

    "they are going to wind up somewhere"

    Indeed, but the question becomes one of whether the government forces people to take them in, or whether they are simply given an opportunity to find a place of their own within the new society.

    Europe is so far from being libertarian, that it's quite an abstract and academic question to discuss the 'libertarian solution" to the "immigration crisis." So much of why the ME is sinking into chaos right now has to do with ways in which European powers have jacked the area over, and active European restriction of immigration even *within* the ME generally has a lot to do with why those societies are so distorted and violence prone.

    Which brings me back to my initial criticism of John's point - the situation is not simple, and is not an indictment of libertarianism's shortcomings. The ideal situation would be that everyone in the world is free to travel and settle where they will, but governments distort that every bit as much as they distort markets, so that sometimes you are presented with a set of choices none of which are ethical or "fit" your ideology.

    Main point: what's going on in Europe and the ME/NA right now is not an indictment of open borders philosophies - it is the result of having borders in the first place. A necessary evil maybe, but maybe not, and working towards a world without borders despite (and because of) the fact that borders cause problems like this is not necessarily as stupid as John is arguing.

  • R C Dean||

    I would only add that, yes, countries can and should have the ability to control their borders, and that they should exercise that control for the benefit of their citizens, and no one else. A government can only be justified based on whether it benefits its citizens, after all.

    A country like Japan or Switzerland, with strict border controls and immigration, is not violating its duties to its citizens or residents, or its duties to non-residents.

  • GILMORE™||

    Also = you never answered my question about why we should be in a tizzy about Europes people-importation issues.

  • R C Dean||

    Should we invade to drive off the migrants? No.

    Should we oppose efforts by Europeans to preserve what they have against a wave of migrants that might, if projections hold, be described as colonization? If you are so inclined, I don't see why not (depending on the measures proposed - closed borders might be OK, but death camps are not).

  • GILMORE™||

    Sorry - my question was directed to John in my first response.

    That said, i don't really get how or why the US could/should/would diplomatically influence European immigration policy.

    i.e. "why would it be in our essential interest, and how would we presume to go about making demands on them, etc"

    The idea of either Invasions or Death Camps was never even remotely on my radar. It was more an issue of, "Why would anyone feel compelled to (attempt to) control movement of people already completely outside our own borders"

  • DJF||

    How does questioning open borders in other countries become a call to invade?

    Does advocating open borders mean that you support invading to push that policy? I think not.

    Advocating that Sweden where I don't live and only visited once should not have open borders is in my interest since having more of the world where my culture and their culture are similar is good for me, having them risk becoming another Islamic mess is not in my interest. But advocating is not a call for invasion.

  • GILMORE™||

    "having more of the world where my culture and their culture are similar is good for me"

    Of course this is why you also make demands on who is allowed to live on your own street.

    I'm going to start calling this "Boy Georging an Argument"

  • DJF||

    If as you call it, "my street" then I have a right to say who uses my street.

    Its socialism that creates my streets but gives me no right to control who uses it.

  • GILMORE™||

    "If as you call it, "my street" then I have a right to say who uses my street."

    Semantics.

    "The street you live on". Your argument presumes that people living in a place necessarily should have complete totalitarian control to preserve and maintain existing status quo...rather that merely provide economic incentives / disincentives in a democratic society that allows people to choose to come and go.

  • GILMORE™||

    that said = there's a reason some places have "gated communities" that exist within a free society. If that's people's bag, they should be free to go for it.

    Noted = NYC is full of "Little Somethings" - Little Italy, Chinatown, Hasidic enclaves, Haitian neighborhoods, etc.

    Residents often complain when the ever-dreaded "white people" move in and start to dilute their "cultural" purity.
    (strangely, the people selling their property at enormous profit never seem to whine themselves)

    people have actually tried to pass laws "protecting" these people from encroachment. Its a crazy progressive idea about "Ending Gentrification" and enforcing some kind of static municipal "Culture Zones". (never mind how these places got created in the first place! - lets freeze things in time!)

    i find it a little weird that some libertarians would take the same view re: International Relations that progs take re: NYC neighborhoods.

  • DJF||

    Who should have control besides the property owners? And those property owners, including the road owners can get together and allow in or keep out whoever they want.

    As to democratic society, where are you arguing from, that government has no legitimacy to stop people moving or a democratic society where the collective decides what is allowed or not allowed.

    If no government then its the property owners who decide who enters their properyt

    If democratic society its the collective which decides and they have a right to stop anyone from entering the collective.

    So in both cases there is no universal right to movement

  • GILMORE™||

    Somewhere the question about

    "Why would it be in the United States interest to diplomatically try and change European immigration policy?"

    ...seems to have gotten lost.

    If you can answer that question without using the word, "Culture", you win a cookie.

  • DJF||

    I don't think the United States as in US government should get involved. Individual Americans however can advocate for whatever position they want including open borders

  • GILMORE™||

    why do any individual American citizens views on European immigration policy matter?

    I agree = let there be a widespread boycott of....cheese or something...to demonstrate our objection to the Islamifying of Europa.

    But why the fuck does anyone care? Is there a concern that Sharia-Compliant Audis will refuse to let women drive them?

  • Free Society||

    The loss of Europe, European culture, philosophy and demographic relevance of European people, strikes me as a loss to humanity.

  • Not okay||

    Same reason you should be concerned the police shoot an unarmed person in some other state. The "why should I care about shit that happens elsewhere" argument is just conceding that you can't accept it and want to avoid it, especially since it you only apply it in this case.

  • DJF||

    “”””That the free movement of labor allows greater economic flexibility and more productivity.””

    But is everyone helped and who gets to decide?

    How about that town in Germany with 150 people and 700 migrants dumped on them?

    Utilitarianism can have some ugly outcomes in detail

  • GILMORE™||

    not all economic arguments are necessarily pure utilitarianism

    i'd presume that if 700 people arrived in a "town" of 150, it would now be a "town" of 850, and the local economy would necessarily respond. If it does so effectively, great. If it doesn't, whoops... that "Town" will quickly become a "town" of whatever size it is able to economically sustain. Your view of how "ugly" the process may be is sort of irrelevant unless you're a participant.

    Your argument seem to presume there's some necessity that every municipality have complete and total control over its population, rather than mere economic 'incentives or disincentives'

  • DJF||

    Actually its the German government which has control over the population of that town since they can dump 700 on them without even asking the people there what they thought.

  • GILMORE™||

    Then you're obviously talking about something other than the "free movement of people" aren't you?

  • DJF||

    I have talked about the free movement of people, see above, it does not exist and only a fake free movement does happen and that is because government forces it on people. Just like the German government forced it on that town.

    The only place in a libertarian society that you have freedom to move is on your own property, all other movement is limited by the need to get the permission of other property owners. And if you have to ask permission then its not a right nor a freedom.

  • ||

    Of course Libertarianism can "account for" collective action - individuals acting together in a group. Not hard at all.

    "Libertarianism assumes everyone is a radical individualist and cannot explain or account for the reality that virtually no one is"

    Everyone *is* a radical individualist. The *only* reason people join groups is because they believe they *as individuals* will benefit from being part of the group.

    The "Swedish" don't have a right to tell people where they can and can't go. Individual Swedes have a right to present themselves with a gun and say "get off my lawn."

    It's not that Libertarianism can't "account" for these things - you just don't agree with Libertarianism in this regard.

  • John||

    The "Swedish" don't have a right to tell people where they can and can't go. Individual Swedes have a right to present themselves with a gun and say "get off my lawn."

    And that will do nothing to stop their country from being transformed into something they don't want. And when the new comers don't respect their right to do that, them having it in the moral sense means nothing since they won't have it in the ultimate sense. Once the newcomers out number the locals, they will transform the country and there is nothing the locals can do about it. Libertarianism offers no answer to that injustice and indeed cannot account for it even occurring.

    Everyone *is* a radical individualist. The *only* reason people join groups is because they believe they *as individuals* will benefit from being part of the group.

    No, they generally join the group they are born into. People are almost always a product of the culture they grew up in. And will not change unless they are separated from that culture and many times not even then. Moreover, to the extent that people will join a culture out of self interest, that just means that the culture that shows up with the most violent tendencies and who punishes those who don't join will likely end up winning.

  • sarcasmic||

    So how come I'm not a Bible thumping fundamentalist? That's the environment I was born into.

  • John||

    Because you grew up in the US and the US has a culture that gives people options and in which people feel comfortable leaving whatever culture their parents grew up in. If you had grown up in Afghanistan, you would almost certainly be a Koran thumping Muslim. Is it possible you might not be? Sure. But the exception doesn't take away from the general truth. Just because the occasional Afghan turns into something else, doesn't mean a few hundred thousand Muslims showing up in your town is going to turn it into anything other than an Afghan town and a town with a culture and people totatlly different than what it has now.

  • sarcasmic||

    Wrong. I chose my own way. People do that. Not everyone does, I guess it is a matter of how badly they crave to be accepted. I've never had that craving. I yam who I am. Don't like it? That's not my problem. Of course some people make it their problem, but it is still a choice. People aren't clay to be molded by society or government. And who knows how many of these immigrants will be happy to escape social pressure.

  • John||

    Good for you sarcasmic. Why is it so hard to understand not everyone is like you? Or indeed if they are, not everyone rejects the culture they grew up in? The people in Afghanistan don't think like you. They don't want to live in the same kind of country you do. That is just how it is. And just because they want to leave Afghanistan for some reason, doesn't mean they are going to be come like you.

    Why can't you understand that someone might choose to come to a new place and demand it change to fit their tastes rather than changing to fit what it is?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why is it so hard to understand not everyone is like you?

    I understand that just fine. The rest of what you said was an arrogant statement. Why not replace "the people in Afghanistan" with "sand niggers?"

  • Contrarian P||

    Someone might very well come to a new place and demand it change to fit their tastes. Your assumption that they automatically will and that the place will therefore immediately change is the issue here. You cite some anecdotal evidence of Muslims that are moving to Europe, and yet there is plenty of similar evidence from Mexican immigrants who would like to make the southwestern United States part of Mexico again. Although millions of them have entered the U.S., Texas is still just as much a part of this country as it ever has been. Just because a few people would like to do something does not mean all of them, or even a majority of them, would like to do it, or indeed even have the capacity to do so.

    Furthermore, you leave out the possibility (I'd argue it's a virtual certainty) that the immigrants will be heavily influenced by the cultures and values of the place they enter and after a time they, or even more likely their children, will not really want to return to the same type of society they left. I'm not saying there won't be groups that will cause problems and that will try to resist being influenced. I'm just not as worried about it as you apparently are. Moreover, as Gilmore said, it's really not any of my business how the Germans or Swedes choose to deal with their immigration questions.

  • ||

    "the immigrants will be heavily influenced by the cultures and values of the place they enter and after a time they, or even more likely their children, will not really want to return to the same type of society they left."

    ^ This.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Furthermore, you leave out the possibility (I'd argue it's a virtual certainty) that the immigrants will be heavily influenced by the cultures and values of the place they enter and after a time they, or even more likely their children, will not really want to return to the same type of society they left.

    But, those who won't, will dilute the essence of our precious bodily fluids.

    /J

  • John||

    Frank,

    You always live up to be a box of rocks. You would think once in a while you would have something smart to say or add by accident if nothing else. But you never disappoint. It is amazing that someone could go through life as happily stupid as you are. Someone needs to do a PHD thesis on you. Do they give PHDs on the psychology of ignorance?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Fuck you John, you bigoted asshole. You are simply not worth engaging. You don't argue in good faith. When cornered, you move the goalposts. You are consistently unprincipled. Your positions contradict each other on an hourly basis. As evidenced in this thread, you don't have the first inkling of libertarian principle. You seem to think that the individual who screams loudest wins. And when beaten you resort to name calling. Your need for attention rivals that of Bo (what, going on 50 posts out of 250 in this thread alone). And anyone who disagrees with you is just to stupid to understand you. You're a troll about one step above Tulpa, and like him, are worthy only of ridicule.

  • John||

    And who knows how many of these immigrants will be happy to escape social pressure.

    Once they outnumber the locals, the social pressure will be to stay the same. You can't seem to understand that other people might not be interested in living any way but how they do now.

  • ||

    "And that will do nothing to stop their country from being transformed into something they don't want"

    Well, this is just a problem with liberty and democracy generally speaking. Democracy, as they say, always carries the seeds of its own destruction because people can vote away the democracy, but you can't vote away the resulting tyranny. That doesn't mean you get rid of liberty just because liberty might one day be defeated by a larger group of people who don't want it.

    People tend to join the group that they're born into because that's what is most advantageous to them. If I'm born into a Mennonite village, deciding I want to be a Satanist is not in my best interests.

    "And will not change unless they are separated from that culture "

    Like, say, if that culture completely implodes, their city is destroyed, and they are forced to abjectly appeal to the people of another culture to take you in?

    Can you think of a context in history in which a non-violent group of refuges has fundamentally transformed the culture of a place that granted them amnesty?

  • R C Dean||

    Their culture hasn't imploded. In fact, its metastasizing.

  • John||

    Can you think of a context in history in which a non-violent group of refuges has fundamentally transformed the culture of a place that granted them amnesty?

    Ancient Rome for one. And pre colonial North America for another. More than anything what happened to the American Indians is they were just overwhelmed by a completely alien culture. There was no way the Indians could live as they had along side western colonists living the way they wanted to. The two cultures were utterly alien and incomparable. So once it was clear the Indians could not stop the westerners from coming, they were doomed to either stop being Indians and become westerners or die. And indeed, that is exactly what happened.

    The problem is some cultures can't be assimilated into others. You can't have a secular Western society and also have an Islamic society. The two are mutually exclusive. So when Muslims come to a Western society, they either have to stop being Muslims in the way they are at home or you have to give up your secular western society. It doesn't look like the Muslims are too interested in changing. And indeed, why should they?

  • R C Dean||

    Can you think of a context in history in which a non-violent group of refuges has fundamentally transformed the culture of a place that granted them amnesty?

    What starts as a non-violent group can become become violent due to the clash of cultures, you know. The English didn't come to the US intending to invade and kill off the Indians. They came intending to settle and create a new province of England. However, once here and growing, the violent clash with the natives became inevitable.

    The great lie of multi-culti is that all cultures can live cheek by jowl in peace. That's just not so, and there's no historical basis for it. Some cultures are just fundamentally incompatible. Fundamentalist Islam and liberal Western/Euro cultures are a pretty good example - neither can fully express themselves at the same time and in the same place. Either one changes (assimilates), or it is driven off.

  • John||

    Exactly that. You can't be a strict Muslim and embrace Western Culture. You either have to stop being a strict Muslim or the Western Culture around you needs to go. There is no third peaceful option.

  • ||

    "Fundamentalist Islam and liberal Western/Euro cultures are a pretty good example - neither can fully express themselves at the same time and in the same place."

    I disagree fundamentally. In fact in recent years I remember seeing a book by a Sufi fellow who made a fairly coherent argument that Western-style secular democracy is actually the fulfillment of the ideas presented in the Quran.

    He's in a very, very small minority, I know, but the fact that the argument is there to be made speaks volumes about the ability of people to adapt their cultures to changing circumstances.

    Despite the simplistic propaganda, Islamic societies of today resemble Islamic societies of 1400 years ago almost not at all. That's why groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS exist - to try to bring back a golden age that has long since vanished. They are the last gasp of the old world against the inevitable modernization of the Middle East. Their violence is a key symptom of their desperation.

  • R C Dean||

    Circle, when I say "fundamentalist Islam", I am referring to currently existing strains of Islam that, not a fringe Sufi interpretation.

    The people who adhere to fundamentalist Islam (Wahhabis, etc.) as it currently exists cannot live side by side with liberal Western/Euro cultures, unless one or the other changes pretty fundamentally.

  • ||

    Fair enough.

  • ||

    Re: Rome and America

    I said "non-violent" with specifically these two situation in mind. As RC points out, some of the British groups came with non-violent intentions.

    *Some* of the *British* groups, I repeat for emphasis. The Mayflower wasn't the only ship that came over.

    "when Muslims come to a Western society, they either have to stop being Muslims in the way they are at home"

    This presumes that Islam is a monolithic culture, which it resoundingly is not. Most Muslims in practice are alienated from the states they live under as there is so much factionalism and variety within Islam that most Muslims exist quite natural with the assumption that their government and their religion are separate.

    I understand that this is not what the Quran says, and this is not the Muslim ideal, but it is the Muslim reality. There are lots of anti-liberty principles in Christianity and Judaism as well. We are not concerned about Christians and Jews, however, because we understand that individuals make their own decisions - even Muslims who make a deliberately un-Islamic decision to leave the House of Peace and go live in the House of War in cooperation and community with the Kafir.

    How would you feel about Christians immigrating from Sudan or Ethiopia in large numbers?

  • John||

    I wouldn't care since I am not Sudanese. And as far as Muslims go, name me a single country that has ever experienced a large influx of Muslims that became a secular democracy and not an Islamic theocracy? You seem to have this assumption that Muslims will not want to make Europe Islamic and like it is back home. There is nothing in history that would cause one to believe that. It would be the first time Muslims have done such. Moreover, go look at the news reports and look at what the Muslims going to Europe are actually saying. They are all saying the same thing; they have come there to make the place Islamic. Why do you think they are lying? Do you think they will change their minds? Shouldn't we take them at their word?

    Sorry, if you say your plan is to transform my country, you don't get to come in and if you deny it and then start planning to do it when you get here, your sorry ass gets deported. And if your group, be that your nationality or religion, is causing this problem, they don't get to come in either. You act like it is just crazy to think any Muslim immigrating would ever expect people to bow down and start being Muslims.

  • sarcasmic||

    And as far as Muslims go, name me a single country that has ever experienced a large influx of Muslims that became a secular democracy and not an Islamic theocracy?

    Turkey.

  • John||

    WRONG

    Turkey was a Muslim Theocracy for 900 years after Muslims invaded the place. They transformed it from a Christian nation into a Muslim nation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yet it is a secular democracy right now. The society is predominantly Muslim, but the government is not. So I am not wrong.

  • ||

    Turkey has never, that I know of, been a theocracy. The term Sultan is a Turkish term that specifically means "not a theocratic ruler," i.e. *not* a Caliph. There is only one fellow currently claiming to be Caliph, and he really doesn't rule over very much.

  • ||

    Correction - not since the Turkish has Turkey been a theocracy. It was a theocracy from circa 312AD to circa 1525AD.

  • ||

    Typing too fast:

    Not since the Turkish *invasion*, which took Constantinople in 1452, not 1525 (was thinking of Babur's conquest of Hindustan).

  • ||

    Spain. Lebanon. India. Tunisia. Iran (pre-1980). If you want just secular, not democracy, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain.

    Saudi Arabia is sort-of a theocracy. In Iran theocrats are certainly over-empowered. Yemen and Oman have theocratic characteristics, but I'm having trouble coming with examples of countries that I would call true "theocracies."

  • ||

    "You seem to have this assumption that Muslims will not want to make Europe Islamic and like it is back home. There is nothing in history that would cause one to believe that. It would be the first time Muslims have done such"

    You could say the *exact* same thing about Christians.

    I have had many friends who were immigrants from Asia, many Muslims, and yes, they do complain that Asians complain about how horrible Asia is and then come here and do everything they can to make it be like Asia here. That's just normal human nature.

    Their kids, however, think they're insane, and have *no* interest in the old culture. They want to live free like Americans.

    What criteria are you proposing for deciding which immigrants get to enter the country and which don't? Would you ban Muslims?

  • John||

    Circle,

    Then Muslim states are right to not allow Christians in. No Christian would ever want to go to a Muslim state but they have a right to tell them no.

    If anything your claim that you could say the same about Christians supports my point. And just because Asians assimilate in America doesn't mean Muslims will assimilate in Europe. The situations are totally different.

    Again, Every Libertarian is convinced everyone in the world is just like them. They are not.

  • ||

    "Every Libertarian is convinced everyone in the world is just like them. They are not."

    No - you're straw manning. The point is that a libertarian can't forbid someone from buying the property next door if he has the means to do so just because he doesn't like the person's culture. That would be not-libertarian, fundamentally.

    In other words, you are correct that libertarians don't have a way to forbid whole groups of people from coming to a place because they tend to shy away from forbidding anyone from doing anything that doesn't harm others.

    I think what a lot of people are asking *you*, as someone who is *not* a libertarian, is what "solution" are *you* proposing to this "problem" of people from undesirable cultures wanting to immigrate to your country?

    You say the problem is not Islam generally, but Pakistani Islam. So do we forbid Pakistanis from immigrating? Are Muslims from Turkey OK? Are Christians from sub-Saharan Africa OK?

    Setting aside the "libertarians are stupid and can't understand this issue" angle, what are you actually arguing?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Can you think of a context in history in which a non-violent group of refuges has fundamentally transformed the culture of a place that granted them amnesty?

    Lebanon? Unless you want to claim that Palestinians are violent as a group?

  • sarcasmic||

    The reason for this is that Libertarianism can't account for or explain what is happening because it can't account for collective action outside of government.

    That's one of the dumbest and most untrue things I've ever seen you write.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Muslims will out number them and just collectively enforce their will on them.

    So the Muslims will for their own government and coerce an entire country? Is that what the Mexicans are doing in California?

  • John||

    Yes. It is really that simple. They outvote you and the country changes. And even if they don't have the right to vote, they just tell you how things are going to be and you have to accommodate them or have a civil war. Every woman wears a head scarf and any woman we see without one gets beat up and raped. What you are going to do about it? Throw us in jail? That is fine you will get tired of being raped before we get tired of going to jail.

  • sarcasmic||

    Every woman wears a head scarf and any woman we see without one gets beat up and raped. What you are going to do about it? Throw us in jail?

    They get away with that in Muslim countries because the government ignores them. I don't imagine the Swedish government would ignore that. And if they tried that around here they'd get shot.

  • See Double You||

    I think the Swedish government does ignore it. Which is another reason that an armed population, independent from the government, is so vital. There may be no truer cliche than "an armed society is a polite society."

  • sarcasmic||

    If the Swedish government does indeed ignore it, then as a libertarian I support the people voluntarily acting in a collective manner to do something about it. Though John will tell me that I really don't support that because he knows what I think better than I do. What an arrogant ass.

  • R C Dean||

    I think the Swedish government does ignore it.

    Indeed they do, from what I can gather, because their government is infected with pan-Euro multi-culti PC "tolerance".

  • See Double You||

    Meanwhile, they crack down on parents who send their children to private school. Because FUBAR.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is because Libertarianism assumes everyone is a radical individualist and cannot explain or account for the reality that virtually no one is.

    Wrong again. Libertarians oppose coerced collective action. Libertarians support and understand all kinds of non-coerced collective action. You know, like corporations, charities, mutual aid group, and such. But whatever. I can see you're on a roll. What time did you start drinking this morning?

  • John||

    Yes, you oppose collective action. The problem is once that happens you offer no way to respond other than to say "that was wrong". The only way to respond to collective aciton is to take collective action in response. And Libertarians can't ever endorse that. So it leaves its adherents to be victimized by those who see no such problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    Again you're just wrong. There's a difference between voluntary collective action and coerced collective action. Libertarians support the former and oppose the latter. If you can't understand the difference then that just means you're as stupid as Tony.

  • John||

    Okay. I have a collective action for you. The Swedes exercise their right to vote and pass a law telling these people to leave and then use the tax money they pay to get the army out and make them leave and make sure no more come in.

    It is my understanding that Libertarians deny the right of people to form governments and have those governments control their borders. Is that not true? If it is, then how can you say Libertarians endorse collective action when they deny the most obvious and effective form of collective action available?

  • sarcasmic||

    Now you are equating voluntary action with coersion. What are you drinhing? Beer? Scotch?

  • John||

    You sound like you don't know the difference between Libertarianism and anarchism. Unless you deny the right of government to exist at all, then you must endorse some kind of coercive action because no government action is going to be agreed to by 100% of the population.

    So the question is if people can take collective action themselves, why can they not do that through government? Sorry but "its coercive" isn't an answer unless you are an anarchist, which last I looked Libertarians were not.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're the one who doesn't understand libertarianism (notice no capital L which indicates a political party, not a philosophy).

    Libertarianism has no issue with government force or coercion in response to force or coercion. However using government to initiate force and coercion goes against the philosophy.

  • sarcasmic||

    And Libertarians can't ever endorse that.

    Bullshit. Libertarians support all kinds of collective action that isn't coerced.

    Seriously, what time did you start drinking this morning?

  • Raven Nation||

    Damnit! It's 12:30 on a Saturday and I haven't started drinking.

  • R C Dean||

    This is kind of a tough one, though, sarc.

    Let's say that some immigrants are engaging in a campaign of rape and violence, and the government is ignoring it. Let's also say that a group of citizens band together to put a stop to the rape and violence.

    How are they going to do that without coercing the perps? This sounds like vigilanteism, as there is no way to achieve the goal without coercion.

  • See Double You||

    I think you can have coercion without aggression, which would be defense. So instead of decrying coercion, the problem is aggression (the wrong kind of coercion, which is what the immigrant gang you pose in your hypothetical is engaging in) vs. defense (the right kind of coercion, if you will, which the band of citizens would be engaging in).

    The issue, then, is: when is coercion aggression, and when is it defense? The answer is not always clear.

  • R C Dean||

    Good point, CW.

  • sarcasmic||

    As far as I am concerned, if the government fails to respond to roving band of assholes initiating force, then it is the duty of the people to take justice into their own hands. Not to initiate violence or coercion, but to stop it.

  • Atanarjuat||

    We should do something to stop the scourge of rapes in Sweden. I propose immediately offering US citizenship to all attractive Swedish females.

  • GILMORE™||

    I have a refugee crisis center already prepared....

  • See Double You||

    And what are the homely ones, raped liver?

  • GILMORE™||

    mmmm.... Swedish Pâté

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Do they even make homely Swedish women?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Here we have say the Swedish who are going along minding their own business and one day a few million Muslims decide they are going to move in and make the place an Islamic state. And if the Swedish don't like that, too bad for them. The Muslims will out number them and just collectively enforce their will on them. :Libertarianism can't account for such collective action. The Swedish by Libertarian standards have a moral obligation to let anyone who wants into the country. The injustice of a group of outsiders coming in and transforming the Swedes' country without their consent is not something Libertarianism can explain or offer any answers."

    To what extent does Sweden's generous welfare state attract Muslims to Sweden?

    All the libertarians I know are very much against democratic socialism and such a huge welfare state.

    Cut out the welfare, and I bet a lot of those Muslims choose to go somewhere else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. To what extent does the welfare state in Sweden (and elsewhere in Europe) make assimilation more difficult? Do you know why businessmen all over the world conform in dress and manners? Why do they all shake hands and wear western style suits?

    I'll tell you why. It's because a certain amount of conformity is required to thrive in a capitalist system. You have to show up to job interviews and dress and sound a certain way. Capitalist systems force assimilation in ways that Swedish/French style welfare states just can't. To what extent does that impact countries like Sweden and France and their problems with assimilation?

  • Agammamon||

    The Swedish don't have guns?

  • F. Iron-Ass Stupidity, Jr.||

    This is because Libertarianism assumes everyone is a radical individualist and cannot explain or account for the reality that virtually no one is.

    The operating mechanism here is that "our ideas are so self-evidently good, people will choose them once they've been exposed to them." Same thing with "exporting democracy". We'll invade Iraq, kick a little ass, and before long Baghdad will be just like Seattle.

  • ||

    "The operating mechanism here is that "our ideas are so self-evidently good, people will choose them once they've been exposed to them.""

    You may be being sarcastic, but this is exactly it. Any ideology based on the NAP must in its very nature rely on this principle. It may be scary, but there is no other road to liberty.

    Ironically, this is also the fundamental principle behind Islam.

  • ||

    In just the same way, I have always been convinced that it was not the Cold War that brought down the USSR - it was Communism. We played Foundation (or should have), and we won, because free markets, where they exist, will always overcome forced markets.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think the idea is that the Cold War forced the communist nation to divert enough scarce resources to the military that it sped up the failure of the collectivist state.

  • ||

    Oh yes - I've certainly heard that one before. Communism would have been a stellar success if not for having to compete with our horrifically expensive and crony-driven military build-up!

  • sarcasmic||

    Not so much that it would have been a stellar success, but rather it would have taken longer to die.

  • ||

    I realized the error of my hyperbole as I hit "submit." I can see the argument that their collapse might have been accelerated by being forced to spend so much on the military.

    I'm not convinced they wouldn't have done so, anyway, and I think the damage we did to ourselves outweighs what we gained, but in fairness it's hard (just like in Foundation) to watch the Evil Empire expand and have faith that your system will simply outperform theirs.

  • sarcasmic||

    Socialism, be it communist or progressive, ultimately results in poverty because it caters to the lowest common denominator. The communist Soviet Union may have limped on in poverty as North Korea continues to do, or it may not have. But I do believe the Cold War hastened its demise.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    it caters to the lowest common denominator

    I think it's important to expound on that. It caters to the lowest common denominator by taking away any economic incentive for the lowest common denominator to change their ways. A lazy-ass worker in a free-market society has to make a decision between working harder and not having enough money to meet the bills at the end of the month. A lazy-ass worker in a statist society has no such worry. They can continue to be a lazy ass, and will be a free rider. There's no point in working hard only to be taxed at 75%.

  • GILMORE™||

    "" this is also the fundamental principle behind Islam'"

    I thought that was = "I don't care what you believe, either convert or i cut your head off"

  • ||

    Actually not. Religions get bound up in rationalizing all kinds of self-contradictory behavior. It's part of what religions do.

    The basic principle of Islam is peace. It's what the word "Islam" means (or more literally, "the act of bringing peace / resolving conflict," "salaam" meaning "peace" literally). "Muslim" means "one who brings peace."

    Per the Quran, the whole idea is to show non-believers the superior ways of living in a non-aggressive society, with the faith that they will come to their senses and convert. Forced conversion is explicitly rejected by the Quran as a meaningless thing and a great evil.

    A lot of this was in direct reaction to the behavior of the Roman government under the theocracy circa 375-550AD, in which getting jailed, tortured or executed for having the wrong opinion about a nit-picky theological point was common.

    Here's where the cosmic irony that seems endemic to religion comes in: all of this only applies to areas *under Muslim rule*, i.e. the House of Peace. Outside the House of Peace, in the House of War, you have a fundamental duty to conquer those people and bring them under Muslim rule so the process can begin.

    Add to that the problem that most people only follow those parts of a religion that they like, and don't actually bother to read their sacred texts, and you get forced conversion and slavery, both of which are forbidden by the Quran.

  • ||

    As is polygamy, actually, except in certain contexts (but rules are made to be bent, amirite?).

  • R C Dean||

    Circle, I think the problem isn't what the Quran may have been intended to do, its what extant Muslim theologies actually call for and have created in the here and now.

    And those include some nasty, nasty cultures and societies that are far from peaceful, and are highly aggressive.

    Its the difference, if you will, between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Inquisition. When you are being tied to the stake, it makes little difference that Jesus would disapprove. His followers are howling for your blood.

  • ||

    "Its the difference, if you will, between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Inquisition. When you are being tied to the stake, it makes little difference that Jesus would disapprove. His followers are howling for your blood."

    Precisely my point.

    There is nothing *fundamental* to either religion that results in "howling for your blood." I'm far from convinced that the current crop of violent extremists that gets so much publicity has as much support in the broader Islamic world as we're told.

    Al-Qaeda was all well and good in the abstract when they were sticking it to the Man, so to speak, but when they *became* the Man for a brief moment in Mali, their moment was . . . brief.

    Painting all Islam with the brush of evil because of the behavior of some Muslims is no different than branding Christianity as evil because of the Inquisition.

    And yes, I get that al-Qaeda and ISIS are happening NOW, and this is a huge difference, and I don't disagree.

    I'm just saying that, as with Christianity, which also went through an ugly period and has had its share of horrific crimes committed in its name, there is nothing fundamental about Islam that makes it so that Muslim immigrants can't accept a libertarian culture.

  • ||

    "And those include some nasty, nasty cultures and societies that are far from peaceful, and are highly aggressive."

    And I can't entirely agree with this. At least "some" is a nebulous term. Do you recall which country Syria last invaded? Or Egypt? Or Morocco?

    IOW, what do you mean by "highly aggressive," exactly?

    It's fairly clear from a study of ME history that part of the undoing of the Islamic world generally speaking was precisely the *passiveness* of their population. This is all over colonial era writings about the Islamic world. It was the primary European observation regarding the "nature of oriental despotism."

    The madrasas that we hear so much about that are dotted around the countryside in the Islamic world arose precisely in response to colonialism. The discussion at the time (and this ironically plays right into John's argument) went something like "Q. We have peacefully let these people in and now they are taking over, what do we do? A. God will take care of it. We are not meant for the World. We will retire to our Schools and Study."

    The modern Islamist movement specifically looks at that history and cries "FAIL!"

    My overall point is that this attitude of "I need to kill you to save my culture" results in lots of dead people. But maybe that's just how things have to be . . .

  • ||

    "Do you recall which country Syria last invaded? Or Egypt? Or Morocco?"

    And to anticipate the jump about to land on me - I mean before the creation of Israel.

  • MSimon||

    Did you ever hear of the Ottoman Empire? Syria was part of it before 1918 or so,

    So yeah. 1948. But Egypt and Jordan eventually made peace. And suggest that other countries do so as well.

  • Not okay||

    You're completely full of shit. First you claim Saudi Arabia is only kind of a theocracy now you want to claim Islam's undoing was its passiveness. That's fucking retarded, you must have studied Islam from a Dr. Seuss book.

    Islam has always been aggressive, and to the extent it became less powerful it was for the same reason the Native Americans didn't invade Europe. Their culture was so technologically retarded it no longer was capable of coercing more advanced societies and their circle of influence became limited. Yet they still have plenty of violence in their circle of influence as they always have.

  • Not okay||

    Islam means submission, not peace. Did you study Islam by listening to Obama speeches?

  • MSimon||

    Correct. Islam is submission.

  • sarcasmic||

    Looks like Red Tony has left the building.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Well thank God people like John were around in the 1870s to warn us about the Yellow Peril. Don't you all know the inscrutable Asiatic culture of the Chinaman is fundamentally incompatible with American values?

    Best to not let any of them in or else they'll start getting our wimmens doped up on the opium among other things.

  • Not okay||

    Thank god people like Grand Moff were around in the 1600s to tell Native Americans that their culture was completely compatible with the settlers.

  • ||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $100 per hour. I work through this link

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.workbuzz60.com

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Wow.

  • RaleighScott||

    Somebody please set up a fund to sue this asshole judge for judicial misconduct and collusion with the defendants. We need to stop begging those in power to stop hirting us and go on the legal offensive. Make an example out of the next cop that assaults someone for the crime of not bowing and scrapung to them fast enough by suimg them as an individual. Really make it a years long drawn out battle and publicize it. Or sue the next judge that shows he is just another tool of the fascist oligarchy. I can't think of a better organization than Reason to lead the effort.

  • RaleighScott||

    Somebody please set up a fund to sue this asshole judge for judicial misconduct and collusion with the defendants. We need to stop begging those in power to stop hirting us and go on the legal offensive. Make an example out of the next cop that assaults someone for the crime of not bowing and scrapung to them fast enough by suimg them as an individual. Really make it a years long drawn out battle and publicize it. Or sue the next judge that shows he is just another tool of the fascist oligarchy. I can't think of a better organization than Reason to lead the effort.

  • Whahappan?||

    Sorry, can't do that. Judges and prosecutors, and to a somewhat lesser extent cops are immune from accountability. They literally CAN'T be sued.

  • TanishaDickson||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......

    www.OnlineJobs100.com

  • MSimon||

    Tarnished Dick? What kind of robot are you?

  • Fizban||

    Don't worry, a little WD-40 and he'll be fine.

  • RubyOconnell||

    Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ---------- http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  • RubyOconnell||

    Im making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ---------- http://www.onlinejobs100.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online