Except it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of the extreme version of itself. Throughout this discussion your answer has been that "this is what is going on" as a way of discarding it. In this case, it is the libertarian party. Although the Libertarian party has been traditionally taken over by the left wing which could very well lead to social/globalism, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian. At the very heart of libertarian view (at least in principle) is the individual property owner and their ability to conduct trade with other individual property owners.
The mises caucus does not support unlimited immigration. They speak rather that those who are into violent crimes and are bad actors should not be allowed to come into our country. But if they are here peacefully they should be allowed to come here. That doesn't sound unlimited to me. In fact, the libertarian policy is to make it easier for immigrants to come into this country, this is something I agree with. We should not make immigration so difficult and expensive so as to motivate citizens from other countries to come here illegally.
I went through the mises material on immigration and the ultimate goal is as much open borders as possible, but the arguments and discussions proposed show realistic incremental thinking, and an admission that there should be some form of vetting going on, but they would rather it be in the form of competition in, at least one form, an Ellis Island type strategy.
You are not excusing it, but you are in your way, seeing the way the libertarian party has been during your time familiar with it to make broad judgments based upon it, and that is a perfectly valid tact to take. The problem I have is that it is not exercised the same way in regards to your position as well.
I wish there was a document that contained a summary of all the libertarian candidates and their specific views on immigration and other issues. What I can assert is that from what I know of and have read of Mises candidates, they are definitely not into globalization and socialism, nor do they adhere to an unrealistic ideal of complete open borders in the same way they would not be for removing doors on their own houses and inviting anyone in for a perpetual open house.
This is not double-talk, you said in your comment, "Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios." I was responding to that statement.
To speak in plainer English, if you go through the different libertarian candidates and notice which ones are Mises Caucus members, they are not for "numerically unlimited immigration."
No one ever stated you were for "unlimited immigration, what, if anything, in my comment suggested you did?
For those keeping track at home I have now been called:
Ignorant
Uneducated
Inexperienced
Leftist
Unintelligible
A Double-Speaker
Loser
Spoiler
Lazy
If I collect a full twenty ad hominem attacks I get a free toaster.
So what is your definition of "effectively unlimited immigration"and how do you see its effect on US sovereignty? The below position by Dave Smith sounds reasonable and consistent with the values.
I am not for "effectively unlimited immigration" and the libertarian policy regarding it shouldn't be for it either...as you should not be able to come where you aren't invited. The idea that people should wander into your house, take what they want, is a ridiculous notion and definitely is not considered "peaceful" in the way they arrived.
If I was polite, invited myself into your house, and then raised your refrigerator and stole all your possessions, that wouldn't be very peaceful.
Except it's not a strawman argument. A strawman argument is a distortion of the extreme version of itself. Throughout this discussion your answer has been that "this is what is going on" as a way of discarding it. In this case, it is the libertarian party. Although the Libertarian party has been traditionally taken over by the left wing which could very well lead to social/globalism, that isn't what it means to be a libertarian. At the very heart of libertarian view (at least in principle) is the individual property owner and their ability to conduct trade with other individual property owners.
The mises caucus does not support unlimited immigration. They speak rather that those who are into violent crimes and are bad actors should not be allowed to come into our country. But if they are here peacefully they should be allowed to come here. That doesn't sound unlimited to me. In fact, the libertarian policy is to make it easier for immigrants to come into this country, this is something I agree with. We should not make immigration so difficult and expensive so as to motivate citizens from other countries to come here illegally.
I went through the mises material on immigration and the ultimate goal is as much open borders as possible, but the arguments and discussions proposed show realistic incremental thinking, and an admission that there should be some form of vetting going on, but they would rather it be in the form of competition in, at least one form, an Ellis Island type strategy.
You are not excusing it, but you are in your way, seeing the way the libertarian party has been during your time familiar with it to make broad judgments based upon it, and that is a perfectly valid tact to take. The problem I have is that it is not exercised the same way in regards to your position as well.
I wish there was a document that contained a summary of all the libertarian candidates and their specific views on immigration and other issues. What I can assert is that from what I know of and have read of Mises candidates, they are definitely not into globalization and socialism, nor do they adhere to an unrealistic ideal of complete open borders in the same way they would not be for removing doors on their own houses and inviting anyone in for a perpetual open house.
This is not double-talk, you said in your comment, "Show me where the Libertarian party platform and some actual party candidates who reject numerically unlimited immigration. Till then Adios." I was responding to that statement.
To speak in plainer English, if you go through the different libertarian candidates and notice which ones are Mises Caucus members, they are not for "numerically unlimited immigration."
No one ever stated you were for "unlimited immigration, what, if anything, in my comment suggested you did?
For those keeping track at home I have now been called:
Ignorant
Uneducated
Inexperienced
Leftist
Unintelligible
A Double-Speaker
Loser
Spoiler
Lazy
If I collect a full twenty ad hominem attacks I get a free toaster.
How many ad hominem attacks are we up to now? I hear with fifty, you can get a rain slicker.
1. Ignorant
2. Uneducated
3.Leftist
4. Inexperienced
5.Unintelligible
6. Extreme Arguments.
7. Double Speaker
8. Lazy
9. Loser
10. Spoiler
11. Incompetent
12. Diversive
13. Game-Player
14. Speed Bump
Mises principles at least are relevant factors for because they speak to the factors that libertarian ideas were predicated upon.
Speaking of Weld, in my effort to educate myself, I ran across this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yj851NgjUA
So what is your definition of "effectively unlimited immigration"and how do you see its effect on US sovereignty? The below position by Dave Smith sounds reasonable and consistent with the values.
I am not for "effectively unlimited immigration" and the libertarian policy regarding it shouldn't be for it either...as you should not be able to come where you aren't invited. The idea that people should wander into your house, take what they want, is a ridiculous notion and definitely is not considered "peaceful" in the way they arrived.
If I was polite, invited myself into your house, and then raised your refrigerator and stole all your possessions, that wouldn't be very peaceful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GWM8Ne20WY
But why listen to me or these examples, you believe my only use is as a speed bump.