Currently watching this. Kokesh is off the rails with ignoring what will happen if you just let everyone in without ending the state, or welfare.
-
-
-
If you hate the Welfare State, the solution is not closed borders, the solution is getting rid of the welfare state.
-
All of these anti immigration arguments assume immigration is a drain on the US. http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Powellimmigration.html …
-
Not true. At this point the demographic shift my primary concern. The welfare is an incentive for more immigration.
-
End welfare. If that is too extreme make naturalization a long process. You can delay someone's political privileges without violating property rights.https://mises.org/blog/dont-confuse-immigration-naturalization …
-
Welfare is a draw, if it weren't here sure this would be less of an issue. And I would even say hey let the citizenry enforce the boarders with private security. But as it is welfare isn't going away and neither are the immigrants that want it, and want bigger government.
-
You're assuming immigrants want bigger government and welfare. What is this based on? In our conversation you've accepted welfare is here to stay and are advocating larger government for border security to protect it.https://youtu.be/EMsz4tszI6A
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Adam is going to need to seriously improve his Spanish to teach his amigos here about the none-aggression principal and sovereign individualismpic.twitter.com/LWnmv0RF6j
-
Is this a picture of libertarians bearing arms?
-
Yeah I'm sure they're just on their way to an Ayn Rand book club meetup
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
To bad neither of you will say WHO's behind immigration, lolpic.twitter.com/Cy1m63C1KN
-
Tweet unavailable
-
WE WUZ KANGZ N SHIET!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@StefanMolyneux was referring to immigration policy in the current plutocracy, and@adamkokesh was referring to a stateless society, so they I suspect agree 100% but we’re having 2 different conversations. Bizarre non-debate. -
No, I was also talking about current policy. The difference is that I actually base my analysis of current policy on universal ethics rather than ends justify means nonlogic, and therefore have the superior strategy morally and tactically.
-
But yes, it was very awkward because he kept arguing with strawmen.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.