interesting criticism of the travel ban

February 14, 2017 05:48PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 6,033
I just finished reading a reason article discussing a couple of aspects of the travel ban on people from certain countries that I haven't thought about before
Most discussion surrounding this has been on weather its a "muslim ban"(its not), weather its constitutional(which the gist of it is, but there are some parts of it where there are legitimate constitutional questions and possible challenges to it, in fact the admin has already made some adjustments to it), or weather its morally rightor "racist"
however this article discusses the probable effectiveness(or, more to the point, LACK OF) and the possible blowback/side effects in what I consider to be an intelligent manner
[reason.com]

I got everything to gain, shit to lose, and a mosin nagant that I'm dying to use---young jeezy
AR-15's are for terrorists and communists, real patriotic americans use the Kalashnikov!----bitter clinging texan
February 14, 2017 09:42PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 228
Now, first off, I understand the ban was morally wrong.

However, I do not like this argument. The article admits that of the majority homegrown terrorists, these are Muslims being radicalised. In a generation, these Syrian refugees will also qualify as homegrown.

How many of the American terrorists are recent-generation immigrants from these countries? It doesn't say, and for good reason.

Look, I'm only fighting the article where it took the fight... but the ban would be saving lives - future generations' lives.

The article wants it both ways. It wants to get down to the nitty-gritty calculus of which policy kills the most people, and I know this is nasty, but that is the policy that let Muslims in to begin with. You don't get to apply that calculus and then take a cross-section of the current instant while ignoring everything else.

If that's too nasty, which I acknowledge it is (and wrong too) then the article has to acknowledge on some level that it's not about the calculus of most-killed-least-killed. The only leg the opposition to the travel ban has to stand on is right versus wrong. That is what they should argue from.

Reason dot com? I see very little reason in this.
February 14, 2017 09:44PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 6,033
for the most part, the travel ban was in no way morally wrong....the only parts I have a moral dispute with have supposedly been fixed

I got everything to gain, shit to lose, and a mosin nagant that I'm dying to use---young jeezy
AR-15's are for terrorists and communists, real patriotic americans use the Kalashnikov!----bitter clinging texan
February 14, 2017 09:47PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 6,033
and to be honest, Ive , over the past couple of years, gravitated to a much less accepting attitude towards islam in general and muslims. Compared to the federal government and most state and local governments, they are a miniscule threat to our liberty and property, however, Ive come to believe that they do pose some threat.

I got everything to gain, shit to lose, and a mosin nagant that I'm dying to use---young jeezy
AR-15's are for terrorists and communists, real patriotic americans use the Kalashnikov!----bitter clinging texan
February 14, 2017 09:52PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 228
Quote
bitter clinging texan
for the most part, the travel ban was in no way morally wrong....the only parts I have a moral dispute with have supposedly been fixed

Libertarians will say it is morally wrong because of the Right to Travel. They will go on to explain that because I have property rights, and Ahmed has property rights, that if I want Ahmed on my land, it doesn't matter if he is literally this guy:



...I have every right to invite him onto my property, he has every right to be there... and the government has no right to stop us.

And since they are coming from the pure NAP, there is no argument against it.
February 14, 2017 09:55PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 6,033
Quote
Freewing
Quote
bitter clinging texan
for the most part, the travel ban was in no way morally wrong....the only parts I have a moral dispute with have supposedly been fixed

Libertarians will say it is morally wrong because of the Right to Travel. They will go on to explain that because I have property rights, and Ahmed has property rights, that if I want Ahmed on my land, it doesn't matter if he is literally this guy:



...I have every right to invite him onto my property, he has every right to be there... and the government has no right to stop us.

And since they are coming from the pure NAP, there is no argument against it.


not every, not even most self-identified libertarians will say that.....I would bet you money Austin Ptersen wouldn't say that.
we live in a nation, therefore the central government has certain responsibilities, and the powers bestowed to fufill those repsonsibilities.......and to at least a great extent, that involves deciding who can and cant enter the country

I got everything to gain, shit to lose, and a mosin nagant that I'm dying to use---young jeezy
AR-15's are for terrorists and communists, real patriotic americans use the Kalashnikov!----bitter clinging texan
February 14, 2017 10:02PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 228
Those aren't real libertarians. If you only use the NAP, you come to my aforementioned conclusion. You can refute the ones who go outside the NAP with arguments from practicality, but those that use only the NAP and deny the legitimacy of all else cannot be refuted with practicality... or any other arguments.
February 14, 2017 10:05PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 6,033
Quote
Freewing
Those aren't real libertarians. If you only use the NAP, you come to my aforementioned conclusion. You can refute the ones who go outside the NAP with arguments from practicality, but those that use only the NAP and deny the legitimacy of all else cannot be refuted with practicality... or any other arguments.

you are not the arbitrator of who is and isn't a real libertarian.......like I said, both Ptersen and MacAfee, who ran for POTUS as libertarians, were against completely open borders.

I got everything to gain, shit to lose, and a mosin nagant that I'm dying to use---young jeezy
AR-15's are for terrorists and communists, real patriotic americans use the Kalashnikov!----bitter clinging texan
February 14, 2017 10:12PM
#   Quote
avatar
Member

Posts: 228
Quote
bitter clinging texan
Quote
Freewing
Those aren't real libertarians. If you only use the NAP, you come to my aforementioned conclusion. You can refute the ones who go outside the NAP with arguments from practicality, but those that use only the NAP and deny the legitimacy of all else cannot be refuted with practicality... or any other arguments.

you are not the arbitrator of who is and isn't a real libertarian.......like I said, both Ptersen and MacAfee, who ran for POTUS as libertarians, were against completely open borders.

Alright, pretend I said Libertarian Purist instead of libertarian. Those are the ones with the airtight case that cannot be refuted.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

We are not affiliated with, nor do our discussions necessarily imply endorsement by The Sipsy Street Irregulars.
Please Login or Register!