DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21328--------------------------------------------------
Ασύμβατος ο &#
922;απιταλισμό
ς με τη "Μετα&
#957;άστευση"
By: Pinochet88 Date: March 3, 2016, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=times new
roman]Ουδέποτε ο
γνήσιος
Καπιταλισμa
2;ς
θα μπορούσε
να
συνυπάρξει
με το
κρατικιστι_
4;ό
τερατούργη_
6;α
της
εισβολής
των
τριτοκοσμι_
4;ών
υπανθρώπων
στις
πολιτισμέν^
9;ς
κοινωνίες.
Όπως εξηγεί
ο
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;ς
φιλόσοφος
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ο
Καπιταλισμa
2;ς
είναι το
μοναδικό
σύστημα το
οποίο
προστατεύε_
3;
τους
γηγενείς
από την
εισβολή, τη
συμφορά και
την
πλυμμηρίδα
του
πολυφυλετι`
3;μού,
χωρίς
φυσικά να
περιορίζει
την
ελευθερία
κανενός. Η
γνήσια
λαϊκή
έκφραση
μπορεί να
υπάρξει
μόνο μέσα
από τον
Καπιταλισμa
2;,
ο οποίος θα
αποδείξει
και στην
πράξη την
όποια αξία
και
επιθυμητότ_
1;τα,
αρνητική ή
θετική, του
πολυφυλετι`
3;μού.
Οι
αντιλευκοί
κρατικιστέ`
2;
που
στηρίζουν
την
τρισάθλια
αυτή
εισβολή
γνωρίζουν
ότι τότε θα
χάσουν: αν
τους πάρουν
στα σπίτια
τους, θα
φέρουν
υποδεέστερ^
5;
αποτελέσμα`
4;α
στην
ελεύθερη
αγορά και θα
υποταχθούν
στη δύναμη
των Λευκών
Χριστιανών
Αντρών. Για
αυτό και
αντιλαμβάν_
9;νται
ότι μόνη
λύση για
αυτούς
είναι η
επιβολή με
την κρατική
βία. Δια της
επιβολής
του
πολυφυλετι`
3;μού
επιχειρείτ^
5;ι
η διάλυση
της εθνικής
και
φυλετικής
ενότητας
των γηγενών
πληθυσμών
του
πολιτισμέν_
9;υ
κόσμου και η
επέκταση
της
συλλογικής
ιδιοκτησία`
2;
εις βάρος
της
ατομικής.
Κίνητρο του
Κράτους
είναι η
μεγιστοποί_
1;ση
της
εξουσίας
του και
όποιος
αποδέχεται
το Κράτος,
συνυπογράφ^
9;ι
και
νομιμοποιε^
3;
τη
γενοκτονία
κατά των
Λευκών η
οποία
εξυπηρετεί
τους
σκοπούς του
κολλεκτιβι`
3;μού.
Όχι αυτού
του
κολλεκτιβι`
3;μού,
αλλά γενικά
του
κολλεκτιβι`
3;μού.
Δεν μπορεί
το Κράτος να
επεκταθεί
περαιτέρω
έχοντας από
κάτω
ανθρώπους.
Για αυτό
τους
μετατρέπει
μεθοδικά
και
αντιλευκά
σε
υπανθρώπου`
2;,
για να τους
κάνει λιώμα
ευκολότερα
και να
προχωρήσει
η
κολλεκτιβο`
0;οίηση,
να
υποδουλωθε^
3;
παντελώς η
κοινωνία.
[hr]
[size=12pt][font=times new roman]Immigration and Libertarianism
By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
This article is excerpted from the author’s A Realistic
Libertarianism
HTML http://bc.vc/pgBEhY.
Left-libertarians profess to apply libertarian principles more
consistently than other libertarians. In fact, their role is to
serve as ν[font=times new roman]iagra to the State. This
becomes apparent when one considers their position on the
increasingly virulent question of migration. Left-libertarians
are typically ardent advocates in particular of a policy of
‘free and non-discriminatory’ immigration. If they criticize the
State’s immigration policy, it is not for the fact that its
entry restrictions are the wrong restrictions, i.e., that they
do not serve to protect the property rights of domestic
citizens, but for the fact that it imposes any restrictions on
immigration at all.
But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted,
“free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place
already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by
the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied,
all migration is migration by invitation only. A right to “free”
immigration exists only for virgin country, for the open
frontier.
There are only two ways of trying to get around this conclusion
and still rescue the notion of “free” immigration. The first is
to view all current place occupants and occupations with moral
suspicion. To this purpose, much is made of the fact that all
current place occupations have been affected by prior
State-action, war and conquest. And true enough, State borders
have been drawn and redrawn, people have been displaced,
deported, killed and resettled, and state-funded infrastructure
projects (roads, public transportation facilities, etc., etc.)
have affected the value and relative price of almost all
locations and altered the travel distance and cost between them.
From this undisputable fact it, though, does not follow that any
present place occupant has a claim to migrate to any place else
(except, of course, when he owns that place or has permission
from its current owner). The world does not belong to everyone.
The second possible way out is to claim that all so-called
public property – the property controlled by local, regional or
central government – is akin to open frontier, with free and
unrestricted access. Yet this is certainly erroneous. From the
fact that government property is illegitimate because it is
based on prior expropriations, it does not follow that it is
un-owned and free-for-all. It has been funded through local,
regional, national or federal tax payments, and it is the payers
of these taxes, then, and no one else, who are the legitimate
owners of all public property. They cannot exercise their right
– that right has been arrogated by the State – but they are the
legitimate owners.
In a world where all places are privately owned, the immigration
problem vanishes. There exists no right to immigration. There
only exists the right to trade, buy or rent various places. Yet
what about immigration in the real world with public property
administered by local, regional or central State-governments?
First off: What would immigration policies be like if the State
would, as it is supposed to do, act as a trustee of the
taxpayer-owners’ public property? What about immigration if the
State acted like the manager of the community property jointly
owned and funded by the members of a housing association or
gated community?
At least in principle the answer is clear. A trustee’s guideline
regarding immigration would be the “full cost” principle. That
is, the immigrant or his inviting resident should pay the full
cost of the immigrant’s use made of all public goods or
facilities during his presence. The cost of the community
property funded by resident taxpayers should not rise or its
quality fall on account of the presence of immigrants. On the
contrary, if possible the presence of an immigrant should yield
the resident-owners a profit, either in the form of lower taxes
or community-fees or a higher quality of community property (and
hence all-around higher property values).
What the application of the full cost principle involves in
detail depends on the historical circumstances, i.e., in
particular on the immigration pressure. If the pressure is low,
the initial entry on public roads may be entirely unrestricted
to ‘foreigners’ and all costs insofar associated with immigrants
are fully absorbed by domestic residents in the expectation of
domestic profits. All further-going discrimination would be left
to the individual resident-owners. (This, incidentally, is
pretty much the state of affairs, as it existed in the Western
world until WW I.) But even then, the same generosity would most
likely not be extended to the use made by immigrants of public
hospitals, schools, universities, housing, pools, parks, etc..
Entry to such facilities would not be “free” for immigrants. To
the contrary, immigrants would be charged a higher price for
their use than the domestic resident-owners who have funded
these facilities, so as to lower the domestic tax-burden. And if
a temporary visitor-immigrant wanted to become a permanent
resident, he might be expected to pay an admission price, to be
remitted to the current owners as compensation for the extra-use
made of their community property.
On the other hand, if the immigration pressure is high – as
currently in the entire Western, white, heterosexual male
dominated world – more restrictive measures may have to be
employed for the same purpose of protecting domestic resident
owners’ private and common property. There may be identity
controls not only at ports of entry, but also at the local
level, in order to keep out known criminals and otherwise
undesirable riffraff. And apart from the specific restrictions
imposed on visitors by individual resident-owners regarding the
use of their various private properties, there may also exist
more general local entry restrictions. Some especially
attractive communities may charge an entrance fee for every
visitor (except for resident-invited guests) to be remitted to
resident-owners, or require a certain code of conduct regarding
all community property. And the requirements of permanent
ownership-residency for some communities may be highly
restrictive and involve intensive screening and a heavy
admission price, as is still the case today in some Swiss
communities.
But of course, then: this is not what the State does. The
immigration policies of the States that are confronted with the
highest immigration pressure, of the US and Western Europe, have
little resemblance with the actions of a trustee. They do not
follow the full cost principle. They do not tell the immigrant
essentially to “pay up or leave.” To the contrary, they tell him
“once in, you can stay and use not just all roads but all sorts
of public facilities and services for free or at discounted
prices even if you do not pay up.” That is, they subsidize
immigrants – or rather: they force domestic taxpayers to
subsidize them. In particular, they also subsidize domestic
employers who import cheaper foreign workers, because such
employers can externalize part of the total costs associated
with their employment – the free use to be made by his foreign
employees of all resident public property and facilities – onto
other domestic taxpayers. And they still further subsidize
immigration (internal migration) at the expense of
resident-taxpayers in prohibiting – by means of
non-discrimination laws – not only all internal, local entry
restrictions, but also and increasingly all restrictions
concerning the entry and use of all domestic private property.
And as for the initial entry of immigrants, whether as visitor
or resident, States do not discriminate on the basis of
individual characteristics (as a trustee would, and as every
private property owner would, regarding his own property), but
on the basis of groups or classes of people, i.e., based on
nationality, ethnicity, etc.. They do not apply a uniform
admission standard: of checking the identity of the immigrant,
of conducting some sort of credit check on him, and possibly
charging him an entrance fee. Instead, they allow some classes
of foreigners in for free, without any visa requirement, as if
they were returning residents. Thus, for instance, all Rumanians
or Bulgarians, irrespective of their individual characteristics,
are free to migrate to Germany or the Netherlands and stay there
to make use of all public goods and facilities, even if they do
not pay up and live at German or Dutch taxpayers’ expense.
Similarly for Puerto Ricans vis-à-vis the US and US taxpayers,
and also for Mexicans, who are effectively allowed to enter the
US illegally, as uninvited and unidentified trespassers. On the
other hand, other classes of foreigners are subject to
painstaking visa restrictions. Thus, for instance, all Turks,
again irrespective of their individual characteristics, must
undergo an intimidating visa-procedure and may be entirely
prevented from traveling to Germany or the Netherlands, even if
they have been invited and command over sufficient funds to pay
for all costs associated with their presence.
Resident owner-taxpayers are thus harmed twice: once by
indiscriminatingly including some classes of immigrants even if
they can’t pay up and on the other hand by indiscriminatingly
excluding other classes of immigrants even if they can.
Left-libertarians do not criticize this immigration policy as
contrary to that of a trustee of public property ultimately
owned by private domestic taxpayer-owners, however, i.e., for
not applying the full-cost principle and hence wrongly
discriminating, but for discriminating at all. Free,
non-discriminatory immigration for them means that visa-free
entry and permanent residency be made available to everyone,
i.e., to each potential immigrant on equal terms, regardless of
individual characteristics or the ability to pay for the full
cost of one’s stay. Everyone is invited to stay in Germany, the
Netherlands, Switzerland or the US, for instance, and make free
use of all domestic public facilities and services.
To their credit, left-libertarians recognize some of the
consequences this policy would have in the present world. Absent
any other, internal or local entry restrictions concerning the
use of domestic public properties and services and increasingly
absent also all entry restrictions regarding the use of domestic
private property (owing to countless anti-discrimination laws),
the predictable result would be a massive inflow of immigrants
from the third and second world into the US and Western Europe
and the quick collapse of the current domestic ‘public welfare’
system. Taxes would have to be sharply increased (further
shrinking the productive economy) and public property and
services would dramatically deteriorate. A financial crisis of
unparalleled magnitude would result.
Yet why would this be a desirable goal for anyone calling
himself a libertarian? True enough, the tax-funded public
welfare system should be eliminated, root and branch. But the
inevitable crisis that a “free” immigration policy would bring
about does not produce this result. To the contrary: Crises, as
everyone vaguely familiar with history would know, are typically
used and often purposefully fabricated by States in order to
further increase their own power. And surely the crisis produced
by a “free” immigration policy would be an extraordinary one.
What left-libertarians typically ignore in their nonchalant or
even sympathetic appraisal of the predictable crisis is the fact
that the immigrants who caused the collapse are still physically
present when it occurs. For left-libertarians, owing to their
egalitarian preconceptions, this fact does not imply a problem.
For them, all people are more or less equal and hence, an
increase in the number of immigrants has no more of an impact
than an increase of the domestic population via a higher
birthrate. For every social realist, however, indeed for
everyone with any common sense, this premise is patently false
and potentially dangerous. A million more Nigerians or Arabs
living in Germany or a million more Mexicans or Hutus or Tutsis
residing in the US is quite a different thing than a million
more home-grown Germans or Americans. With millions of third-
and second-world immigrants present when the crisis hits and the
paychecks stop coming in, it is highly unlikely that a peaceful
outcome will result and a natural, private-property-based social
order emerge. Rather, it is far more likely and indeed almost
certain that civil war, looting, vandalism, and tribal or ethnic
gang warfare will break out instead – and the call for a
strong-man-State will become increasingly unmistakable.
Why, then, one might ask, does the State not adopt the
left-libertarian “free” immigration policy and grasp the
opportunity offered by the predictable crisis to further
strengthen its own power? Through its internal
non-discrimination policies and also its current immigration
policies, the State has already done much to fragment the
domestic population and so increase its own power. A “free
immigration” policy would add another, enormous dose of
non-discriminatory “multiculturalism.” It would further
strengthen the tendency toward social de-homogenization,
division and fragmentation, and it would further weaken the
traditional, white, heterosexual male dominated ‘bourgeois’
social order and culture associated with the “West.”
The answer as to ‘why not?’ appears simple, however. In contrast
to left-libertarians, the ruling elites are still realistic
enough to recognize that besides great opportunities for State
growth, the predictable crisis would also entail some
incalculable risk and could lead to social upheavals of such
proportions that they themselves may be swept out of power and
be replaced by other, ‘foreign’ elites. Accordingly, the ruling
elites proceed only gradually, step by step, on their path
toward a “non-discriminatory multiculturalism.” And yet they are
happy about the left-libertarian “free immigration” propaganda,
because it helps the State not just to stay on its present
divide et impera course but to proceed on it at an accelerated
pace.
Contrary to their own anti-statist pronouncements and
pretensions, then, the peculiar left-libertarian victimology and
its demand for undiscriminating niceness and inclusiveness
vis-a-vis the long, familiar list of historical “victims,”
including in particular also all foreigners qua potential
immigrants, actually turns out to be a recipe for the further
growth of State power. The cultural Marxists know this, and that
is the reason why they adopted the very same victimology. The
left-libertarians do apparently not know this and are thus the
cultural Marxists’ useful idiots on their march toward
totalitarian social control.
source
HTML http://bc.vc/X4xH3l[/font]
*****************************************************