Comments Elsewhere

Tom: “That is why he cannot not see the parallel between a house-family, and country-citizens.”

Tom, do you genuinely think that the relationship between parent and child is an appropriate model for the relationship between the State and its subjects? Some of us are wary of the historical tropes of absolute monarchy. Some of us also prefer to be treated as adults.

That said, let’s grant your analogy for a moment. What kind of parent is the government? Does your father take half of the money you earn at your job and use it for his own purposes? Does he follow you back to your house and beat you up if you smoke dope or invite the wrong people to stay with you?

“He looks at the USA as an artifical institution that only gets in the way of his plans for the world – whatever they may be.”

You seem to be confused. I don’t have a plan for the world. I have a plan for the peaceful enjoyment of my own property and I object to the government using violence to interfere with it. I also object to the government (or anyone else) using violence to interfere with other people’s plans for the peaceful enjoyment of their own property. I don’t have any intentions with setting their plans myself.

This is one of the many things that distinguishes me from, say, a Maoist. It’s also one of the many things that distinguishes me from you: you have a plan for a particular sort of demographics (economic? ethnic?) in the United States and feel free to endorse attacks on other people peacefully enjoying the use of their own property in order to implement that plan. It is that to which I object.

“Rad Geek sees the government for as something that solely applies force.”

How do do you think the government enforces its edicts? Magic wands are in short supply.

“By this he implies, and wants us to beleive, that applying force is wrong and unnecessary.”

This is a grave misunderstanding. I don’t object to using force. What I object to is initiating force. Think of it this way: making a law means, ultimately, using violence if necessary to enforce the provisions of the law. Laws are justified when using violence is justified (e.g., laws to prevent pillage, rape, murder, etc.). They are not justified when using violence is not justified (i.e., forcing someone to give a job to disadvantaged minorities, forcing someone to give a job to privileged majorities, forcing someone not to smoke dope, etc.).

“What he does not mention is that he has no real solutions.”

Solutions for what? I’m not interested in solving social problems by attacking people. My suggestion is to stop trying. If you want to talk about nonviolent means of building a healthy, vigorous, and prosperous community, let’s talk.

“His solutions are impractical.”

Do you think that the current immigration prohibition is “practical”? What practical ends is it achieving?

“This is what communists did in Eastern Europe.”

I am not the one who advocates attacking immigrants to enforce a vision for America. You are.