Also what is this business about comparing society to a stew? The chef mixes a stew to satisfy someone’s tastes. Are you claiming that your society must be peopled in a manner appropriate to your tastes? Wow, what megalomania! Let me guess, you want people to check with you before they decide to reproduce, right? Can’t have the wrong genes being propagated without conscious control, now, can we?

Terry,

Homeowners do indeed have a right to form an association. However, they can’t force somone to join at gunpoint. The U.S. government, when it passes a law stating that nobody can get a job without their permission, imposes that law upon people who don’t want to live by it. It’s one thing to impose a law (such as a prohibition on murder), which prohibits the violation of a natural right of an individual. It’s another to impose a law which violates that natural right known as freedom of association. You can marry someone and choose to waive your right to have sex with other people. The government can’t morally pass a law that forces you to marry someone against your will.

That is why I am impatient with the Homeowner’s Association model since it is at best a horribly fatally flawed analogy. People can enter or leave such associations voluntarily. Usually when someone tries to withdraw from association with the United States government, if they don’t go into exile, they get shot.

thomas,

I presume you cleaned your room and completed all your chores before blogging on the internet right? After all, until your room is perfectly clean, spending your time on other things makes no sense… You see the absurdity of your position now?

I don’t know about you, but when I’m making my stew, I throw as much meat and vegetables of all varieties in as I can and mix it all together. I throw in beef, tomatoes, potatoes, snow peas, peppers, onions, carrots, okra, corn, some S&P, and a bunch of different spices. Granted, I don’t throw the tomatoes in at the same time as the potatoes, but it all gets in there. When it has all cooked enough, I end up with a big bowl of slop that I dip my cornbread in.

Now, when I’m baking my cornbread, I only throw in those ingredients that the recipe calls for and only in the amounts that the recipe calls for. When it has all cooked enough, I end up with a nice little pan of cornbread muffins (I make mine into muffins) that I dip in my stew.

Do you know what the best part of my meal is? Both parts. Don’t get me wrong, I love my stew. The flavor of each ingredient meshes with the flavor of each other ingredient to make a wonderful taste that sets my taste buds on fire. Sometimes I add a little too much potatoes or tomatoes, but that doesn’t mean that my stew is ruined. It just means that I have a different flavored stew than the last stew that I made. By going at it in a haphazard kind of a way, I get something new every time.

My stew alone, however, just doesn’t seem right without that cornbread. I need that one powerfully-flavored muffin so that I can soak up the goodness of my stew. My muffin tastes great alone, just like everything that I cook. I can slap some butter on it and just revel in its moistness and delicious corny flavor as I bite into it. However, without that stew, it just isn’t the same. My cornbread, my single-flavored cornbread, needs its stew. It’s entire reason for existing is to soak up all of that goodness.

Without that stew, my cornbread is just a muffin that just isn’t satisfying enough to call a meal; I need my meats and vegetables AND my grains. Without that cornbread muffin, my stew is just a stew that isn’t satisfying enough to call a meal; I need my grains AND my meats and vegetables.

The moral of my dinner is this: if you want a wonderful society in which everyone is made better by their interactions with different people who have different ideas, it’s best to throw them all in together and let them stew for a bit. If you want a bland society where everyone ends up the same as everyone around them and where no new ideas are introduced, it’s best to keep everyone separated.

Of course your retort is that everyone must agree to the exclusion. However, this fails when you make yourself liable for the invitation. Suppose out of some act of charity or self-interest you invite to the U.S. former Mexican criminals and rent to them your apartments. Are you willing to pay for the absolutely guaranteed increased incidence of crime? Are you willing to make this payment for the life of your invitees?

Until you are willing to explicitly pick up that bill, it seems reasonable that this larger homeowners’ association assume an implicit denial of that liability.

“Fiat justitia, pereat mundus” seems to be the cry of an ideologue. If something smells fishy, I myself wouldn’t swallow it just because my “principles” (so-called) told me it was wholesome: I’d re-examine the principles.

Like many a poor idea, border control would fail if it had to find its funding through free market, voluntary exchanges.

Mr. self-proclaimed “Reverend”, I’m guessing that you’re a state-incorporated clergy person.

It follows that you would speak up for statist idolatry.

But it is quite funny to me that you would use the gate-crasher metaphor while admitting that you live in the “San Joaquin Valley”.

You see, you’re a double gate-crasher, ideologically speaking:

Once via ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

Twice via US warfare and expropriation of the Mexician Southwest.

You get it now, don’t you!

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

If you come to my house through the gate meant for that purpose, and knock on my door requesting entrance. . . good for you!
If you jump the fence into my yard, you’ve got no right to complain if you get shot – you’re trespassing.

I live in the San Joaquin Valley. . . and the rest of the country is my back yard – enter through the gate or suffer lethal consequences.

For those of you not capable of understanding the last example. . . here is one even you can comprehend:
When you’re making a stew, the proper ingredients in correct proportions makes for a delicious meal – When you have unregulated dumping of random ingredients, you end with unpalatable slop.

Sorry. . . can’t dumb it down any more than that. . . you either get it, or you don’t.

For those who may be interested in additional material,

In one of my several articles about The Unnecessary War Against Immigrants ( http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?board=4.0 ), I address an argument by Hoppe similar to his corporate view presented above, in which I point out a simple logic error and I conclude that rather than closing borders, “Mr Hoppe’s argument is sufficient grounds for ENFORCING open borders!” Link is http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=16.0

On the welfare/immigration issue, I address additional points that were not made above (“Ask The Right Question”–link http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=12.0 ) and, for the Constitutionally oriented, I point out that “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!”
http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=13.0

Best regards.

Nice article.

I think I’ve heard (via MP3) Hoppe suggest that the point of immigration actually exposes the poor reason for State extortion to finance welfare systems for existing “citizens”, and not just for the added burden “aliens” may pose to a hostile State. Although, I personally have no allegiance, political residency, citizenship, or vested interest in any State, or the United State, even thought I was born on the North American continent.

But it seems to me that only those with some statist or racist greed are the ones most threatened by allowing all people and economies to find their natural equilibrium on planet Earth, without regard to hostile boundaries assigned by a parasitic ego mass, known as a State, or a United State.

And what a ridiculous statist proposition it is to assign a label of “illegal alien” to a human being born on their own planet.

Or, like the Robert Orben quote says:

“Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.”

And:

“The love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?” ~ Pablo Casals

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

LOOOOOOOOOONEWAAAAAAACKOOOOOOOO!!!!

If they could come here freely, why would they trespass? They’d just take the bus in.