The Global Liberty Community
Racist Skittles?
Donald Trump Jr has been lambasted by the left and its media acolytes for allegedly “comparing refugees to candy.” This, we are told, is an example of the dehumanization and racism which so characterizes Donald Trump and his campaign. Is this true? Let us take a closer look.
First of all, using a Skittles analogy is obviously for pedagogic reasons, in order to make a vivid and simple example about what is at stake when you take in refugees from very bad neighborhoods. You will get rapes, you will get murders and you will get terrorist attacks. Perhaps not so many, but more than you would get if you didn’t take in any refugees.
So Donald Trump Jr. is not really talking about the plight of refugees at all, but rather about the risks to Americans. Notice how Donald Trump Jr is not saying that Americans should not help Syrian refugees, only that they should not be helped by bringing them to America.
Is it dehumanizing, insensitive and racist to use candy as an example to illustrate the dangers of bringing in unvetted refugees from dangerous areas to America? Let us answer that by turning the question on its head. Is it dehumanizing and insensitive to innocent Americans to actively put them at risk from being raped, murdered and terrorized by people from a bad culture?
I would argue that it is.
If you disagree with this, then there is a very simple way that all the proponents of bringing in refugees to America can prove how sensitive they are: every time a refugee rapes or murders or commits terror, then the politicians who voted for bringing them in have to enter a lottery where there is a certain chance that they themselves will be raped or murdered. If only 1% of the refugees rape women, then for every refugee rape the odds for a politician for being raped is set to 1%.
This makes the Skittles example very real for politicians. So what do you think? If politicians had to personally and directly carry the consequences of the rapes and murders they import to America, how many of them would vote for bringing in even a single refugee? I could be wrong, but to be honest I think the number is very close to zero.
If that number is near zero, as I suspect, it tells us that these politicians think that inflicting rape and murder on innocent Americans is perfectly ok as long as they themselves are safe. How is that for insensitivity and dehumanization?
Join The Discussion
15 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
Please login or register to post a comment.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... September 22, 2016 , 9:37 pm Vote1
BOTH this article and the “rebuttal” obfuscate–with excruciating minutia down to Skittles–the goal of LIBERTY.
Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control.
It is an absurd “tactic” for anyone who’s alleged goal is liberty.
If welfare is a problem, abolish government welfare rather than expand government into immigration control!
If drugs are a problem, abolish the government drug war rather than expand government into immigration control!
If crime is a problem, carry a gun and buy insurance rather than authorize government agents to kill with impunity!
If refugees are a problem, stop government from dropping bombs on their houses rather than expanding government extortion of even more taxes to built and maintain walls around this nation-wide FEMA camp.
If privacy is a problem, put a fence and locked gate around your own privately owned property rather than advocate government violation of my freedom to travel and to associate with others.
“If you want to BE free, you must do things that MAKE you free!” Advocating MORE government is NOT the answer.
“Libertarians” seem to have lost the understanding of the root word: LIBERTY
[1] Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. November 10, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona
lewrockwell (dot) com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/
Hoppe has nearly consistently violated the NAP by calling for closed borders. Here is only one article exposing logical fallacies he commits while doing so.
tinyurl (dot) com/Hoppe-border
Lew Rockwell’s “coming out” of the immigration closet[1] and embracing of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s closed-borders position has (once again) split the libertarian community. Every pseudo-libertarian xenophobe, Racist, NAP hater and wanna-be control freak has now jumped onto the bandwagon of this once respected and distinguished libertarian and, like Rockwell himself, they have openly exposed their long hidden, secret prejudices and suppressed contradictions by calling upon government to forcibly close, seal and lock down the borders–so that no one can enter or LEAVE this country-wide FEMA camp without permission from tax supported, armed government bureaucrats.
Fernando Di Ramos September 22, 2016 , 11:45 pm
Dear friend. I am Brazilian and atheist. So I do not belong to any of the groups involved.
Let’s assume that we all lived in a libertarian building. There is no state in a libertarian building. And I would say more, no laws, no hierarchy. However, a foreign group who in a speech promises to overthrow our building must be received joyously or prevented approaching?
Remember there is no state or law. I, alone, would be against the approach of this group, much less the entrance, in a building with only libertarians insides. I also have no doubt that many would support my decision and would also be against the simple approach of the group which is known for wanting to destroy us.
The freedom of one can not be greater than my freedom to live. Try to preserve his own life does not harm the principle of nonaggression. Nor diminish the freedom, dignity and human happiness.
It is completely reckless allow humans who threaten the lives of peaceful people who live within the libertarian building or within the USA.
Life comes first than freedom. If we to continue to live have to accept some degree of government, what’s wrong? The government can then be deposed, even after a long time, but life is never recovered!
peace and cheers!
Onar Åm September 23, 2016 , 5:38 am Vote1
Fernando, I noticed we used almost the same analogy (I used a house on fire). I responded before I read your post, so I did not copycat you. I could not agree more with you that the borders should only be open to peaceful individuals who cannot vote the liberty away. I am glad we are on the same page on this.
dL 1337 September 24, 2016 , 12:50 am
@ofernandofilo
States are not private buildings…bad analogy
Onar Åm September 23, 2016 , 5:34 am Vote1
“Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control.”
Not if you allow rapists, murderers, terrorists, welfare recipients and socialist voters who destroy the country into the country. Stopping people like that is the proper role of government. Today the cultural marxists are doing the exact opposite. They are stopping peaceful people from entering the country and protecting the bad guys.
“If welfare is a problem, abolish government welfare rather than expand government into immigration control!”
Yes, yes, the problem is that there is no time for that. There is a fire burning down the house of liberty, and while we talk about how to redecorate the house the house is burnt to the ground. We need to stop the fire now while there is still something left of liberty to save.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... September 23, 2016 , 8:34 am Vote2
Good ideas do NOT require initiating force.
The absurdity here is using tax money EXTORTED from ME–I.E. Pointing a Gun at me–to build border fences and to occupy the border with ARMED forces–24 hours/day, 7 days/week thereby restricting freedom of travel, allegedly to protect MY property when I have issued an invitation to all peoples of the world to come to my property and offer me their products and/or services in trade. Some protection racket that is!
Lew Rockwell has abandoned the Non-Aggression PRINCIPLE. (NAP).
SELF DEFENSE is a RESPONSE to initiation of force. NAP does not prohibit self defense.
If refugees fleeing from war zones are a problem, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT BOMBINGS and FUNDING of TERRORISTS rather than expand government into immigration control!
If RAPE and MURDER is a problem, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROLS rather than expand government into immigration control!
EXPANDING government powers and programs–see above–does NOT REDUCE government Bombings and Funding of Terrorists AND Victim Disarmenment. (Well, duh! ) But it DOES reduce Individual Liberty.
There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every program that The State undertakes. Whatever “results” are desired, using government to achieve them is not justified nor logical.
The ends do NOT justify the means! Continuing to Use bad means is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how “good” your intentions are and no matter how long you have been forced to participate. No it is not too late. The moral costs of initiated force far outweigh any claimed benefit.
As an abolitionist…I already know your position is morally wrong, in the same way that if someone said they weren’t 100% behind freeing Black slaves I would know they are wrong, despite the fact many argued as you do (that freeing a group of people i.e. blacks would destroy the US, with raping, murders etc).
Whatever your position is if it isn’t open borders it’s wrong. If it is some partial mix between closed and open borders it’s wrong.
You are illogically trying to make the refugee–emigrants fleeing the Govt bombs etc– and those who are being extorted by Govts, out to be the criminal perpetrator so that you can feel better about supporting the government Pointing a Gun at the refugee AND me AND you!
So who is actually pointing the gun at you? Is it the refugee? No, it is the government. The refugee has done nothing to you. You have no right to point a gun at them.
For all the rational considerations, Lew conspicuous FAILED to mention what the question is actually about: is it okay to POINT A GUN at someone, because he tries to step over an invisible, arbitrary line without the written permission of politicians? It’s not. In the midst of all the group think and collective reasoning, I have to assume that Lew Rockwell didn’t mention that question–the only relevant question–for the same reason statists never explicitly describe the VIOLENCE they advocate: because it makes it sound as bad as it is. Whatever inconveniences a mass migration may cause you, each INDIVIDUAL involved is a separate person, and initiating violence against an INDIVIDUAL who has not harmed or threatened anyone, simply because he is part of a *GROUP* that may have an adverse impact on what you want, is immoral.
(P.S. I want to stand Lew in the woods, with a gun, at the invisible line between Canada and the U.S., and have someone try to “illegally” walk over that line, and see if Lew can justify threatening violence against that person. If so, he should never wear the label “libertarian” again. If not, he needs to change his position.)
Onar Åm September 23, 2016 , 12:07 pm Vote0
“Good ideas do NOT require initiating force.”
Sometimes you have no choice. Police is a good idea. They protect you from rape and murder, but given the political climate today, it is impossible to fund them in any other way than with taxes.
“The absurdity here is using tax money EXTORTED from ME–I.E.”
The extortion of money from you for building a fence is the least of your problems. The fact of the matter is that hispanics vote overwhelmingly left-wing for bigger governments and more welfare (which they do not pay for). 80% vote democrat, 20% vote republican. Those are the facts. So for every 5 hispanic immigrants who come to America, you are importing 4 left-wing voters.
In practice this means that when the population of hispanics reaches a certain threshold, the republican party (or the libertarians) will never ever ever ever win another election. The US will then be a third world country with third world barbarian cultures. And they will vote for very very high taxes for you. All the freedoms you today enjoy will be gone, voted away by foreigners.
So as of now, the choice stands pretty much between: build a wall, and lose your country. Those are your two choices.
“Whatever your position is if it isn’t open borders it’s wrong. If it is some partial mix between closed and open borders it’s wrong.”
Open borders plus welfare programs is a form of slavery. Closing the borders is sometimes the right thing to do, because it is the least bad alternative.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... September 23, 2016 , 10:34 pm
Onar your position is the typical Misdirection away from the pillaging and Extortion Racket; and Wars that are the Health of the “Nation” State.
It’s surreal much like listening to NPR when it talks about “All things considered” except the ever ratcheting elephant with the gun in the room; and everything but the camel’s head snooping under the tent and sheets of your bed; and two seething wolves and a baby lamb and sheep arguing what’s for dinner?
Indeed it is a strategy of enforcing the will of the Political Class via “Prosecutorial Philosophy of Applied Violence”*…
As Cantwell points out “We oppose theft, fraud, assault, rape, AND MURDER. We oppose predation of person and property. If you had done a very good job of preventing these things, then we would have no quarrel.”
“This however, is not the case. Your agencies have become the greatest PERPS perpetrators of these crimes in the history of mankind.” We are not talking about Matt Dillon, dear reader, we are talking the Sheriff of Nottingham and his men.
See Wendy McElroy articles on such and banality of evil. I.e. To Serve and Protect — the State, not the people…
Who declared war on who? Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971, and I was born in 1980. I was born into a warzone.” Indeed I was grandfathered in…
————————–
“Here’s a glimpse at what happens when some really smart people build rocket ships instead of protesting gravity.“
1. Instead of studying and perpetuating failed government(s) and their continuous divide and conquer Wars with each other and on their people, libertarians, ancaps and anarchists (and even Seastead enthusiasts!) would do well to investigate Gurgaon, India. Additional bonus: English spoken here.
Privatized city in Gurgaon, India–this is certainly an example of Living without Government–and for more than 40 years!!
In spite of the biased reporting, it looks like private companies DO provide services–otherwise they could not attract paying customers. And the REST of India? Government is in charge there and STILL people continue to VOLUNTARILY move into the privately owned structures in Gurgaon.
Instead of thankless wrestling, I have been enjoying myself with my recent discovery and further exploration, via the web, of Gurgaon, India which Dennis Wilson mentions in his article Libertarian Dream City?
http://tinyurl.com/Privatized-City
…They’ve beefed up the city’s 4,000-strong police force with an army of 35,000 private security guards. And one of the city’s largest developers, DLF (originally Delhi Lease and Finance), opened the nation’s first privately owned fire station in 2012. The city’s small public [GOVERNMENT] fire station didn’t have hydraulic platforms that could spray water to the top of DLF’s highest towers, so the developer simply purchased two 90-meter platforms for its own state-of-the-art firefighting service.
———-
2. How Policing Works in a Privatized City
Atlantic Station is a city within a city…by Jeffrey Tucker…
http://tinyurl.com/Atlantic-Station-GA
I was walking along and a uniformed police office greeted me good evening. I responded with delight, and we had a nice conversation. She wanted to know if I was enjoying the evening, made a few bar recommendations, we chatted about the weather, and I went on. She was uniformed, yes, and probably armed, but in a non-threatening way. She looked sharp and helpful, as well as official.
Then it struck me: the police in the community are privately employed by main stakeholders in the community, which are the merchants, apartment owners, and other service providers. (The streets are also private but public access.) For this reason, the police themselves have a deep investment in the well-being of the community and the general happiness of the consumers who shop there. They are employees of the free enterprise system. In particular, Atlantic Station owners contract with Chesley Brown for experienced service.
Sometimes in today’s overly-militarized environment, it is easy to forget: policing is a completely legitimate, useful, important profession. They are there to make sure that everyone is keeping the rules and to apprehend the vandals and criminals who break the rules. You might even call them the thin-blue line.
What makes the difference here is the private nature of the contract that employs them. Just as every other employee in this community, they have a direct stake in the value of the space. They are there to serve customers, just as every merchant in this community does.
The more valuable the community, the more valuable their own jobs. They have the incentive to do their job well, which means enhancing the experiences of rule keepers while driving out those who do not keep the rules.
The rules for Atlantic Station are rather strict, more so than I would have thought. There is a curfew for teens. You can’t wear gang-related or obscene clothing. You can’t carry weaponry. You can’t use indecent language. You can’t smoke. You can’t be boisterous. You can’t shout or be vulgar. You can jog, but you can’t just take off running through streets like an animal.
If rules like this were imposed by a city government, people would rightly complain about the violation of rights. So why aren’t these rules violations of rights? Because it is private property and the owners determine them…
————–
3. ‘”How would things be DIFFERENT,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”’
Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the OPPOSITE of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies.
This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the Protection of Persons and Property, RATHER than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit…
“Believe it or not, violent criminals Hate Video Cameras because it takes away anonymity, and proves that they’re the ones doing something…(1) I slowly changed out, over many years, from guns to cameras. A broke camera was more effective at getting rid of drug-dealing gangs than actual guns.” (2)…
“Support Your **Local** Private Peace Officer: He’s Got a Dangerous Job” and he actually has checks and balances and he does NOT Demand help nor does he EXTORT TAXES NOR MISREPRESENT his Jurisdictional Serve and Protect duties, Power and Allegiance*.
I address that* and refer to Police Alternatives such as:
Our sense of security is fundamental to living an enjoyable life. Nobody wants to sleep with one eye open.
As long as there are predatory people in the world, our need for reliable, effective security will be there.
Since some of us know we can’t rely on cops to help us in an emergency, where else can we turn?
Security is being crowdsourced. Cell411 and Guardian Circle are smart phone apps dedicated to providing a superior alternative to relying on 911 in a crisis. These apps let you instantly alert a chosen network of people (friends, family, or others nearby who use the app) that there’s an emergency, like an accident, altercation, or health crisis.
Cell411 also lets you immediately start streaming video. If an aggressor knows that the video you’re recording can’t be deleted even if your phone is destroyed, that alone can be a powerful deterrent.
(I am a “fan” of PIIP–Progress by Incremental Improvement and Prototyping.😆)…
https://connect.liberty.me/who-declared-war-on-who-and-intro-to-interposition/
I provide evidence of recent and relevant Grand scale models of INTERPOSITION* and blossoming of Privatized Security and Volte-face by “Nation” states!
https://connect.liberty.me/new-ways-to-use-knowledge-to-fulfill-big-dreams-including-holographic-opsec-aspect-of-interposition-to-access-and-project-rapid-real-time-interactive-3d-human-visual-cued-communication/
Onar Åm September 25, 2016 , 4:12 am Vote0
Mal, first of all I would have a lot more respect for your opinion if you did something in the real world to promote the things you talk about. What are YOU doing to make sure that there are private cities, private security, new technology that enables freedom etc.? It is easy to sit in your armchair and complain, but my experience with libertarians is that they are mostly not interested in making any effort in the real world, and that their ideology is mostly only a game to be played in the game — and in the armchair.
So what we are talking about here is that right now there are murderers and rapists flooding through the border of the United States. Right now. Thousands of young girls have been raped and in some cases murdered because of illegal immigrants crossing the border. So what are you going to do about that? Tomorrow there will be another rape, and another and another. Tick tock. While you are sitting in your armchair and dreaming of utopian solutions, real people need real protection right now. What is your solution?
dL 1337 September 24, 2016 , 12:51 am
The skittles analogy is a logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
Martin Brock September 24, 2016 , 6:33 am
If U.S. politicians “allow” the import of automobiles from China to the U.S., then if an American dies in an automobile accident, due to a defect in one of these automobiles, we pick a politician at random and slam a Chinese automobile into him?
dL 1337 September 25, 2016 , 10:14 am Vote1
@restonthewind
As an aside, I must say you rarely, if ever, get it wrong. One of the better commentators on this site.
simon sarevski September 25, 2016 , 8:34 pm Vote0
Problem is, if you buy the imported car on voluntary basis, it’s you taking x% chances of it malfunctioning (and later getting compensated for X, according to the initial agreement), the insurance company and the car provider, while with the case of immigration, it’s one size fit all, 51% democracy rule.
dL 1337 September 26, 2016 , 9:50 pm Vote0
@partyruller
Well, if people were involuntarily imported in, you might have a point. The only collective action relevance of democracy in this instance would be to prohibit or restrict the practice. So I would concur with opposing a one-size fit all, 51% democracy rule as a legitimate means to dictate the free movement of people.
Mal Roarke is a pseudonym... September 26, 2016 , 9:41 pm Vote0
Call me AtlasAikido,
Indeed, feel free to do the responsible thing and “respect” yourself!
Onar are you really telling me you need Atlas (An Aikidoist…) to point out to you that its your j o b to protect the women folk around you?
More men get “raped” and gang banged than apparently you are aware of. You are not immune.
Rape is still committed by locals as well as immigrants but that is less news-worthy.
Can you not protect yourself, let alone your women folk? And what of your neighbors? Do you rely on them to protect you, familly, children and friends?
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.”
—Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment
See following where Dennis Wilson, Doug Casey, Harry Browne and I responded to you et al, especially the Last comment dated yesterday. Perhaps you will have a new today in an unfree world?
https://connect.liberty.me/how-i-freed-myself/