|
And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love. I shall walk at liberty, for I have sought your precepts. |
GregThe matter of immigration is a topic that draws out a lot of emotion. Some people advocate for open borders while others push for the borders to be closed. As is often the case, the starting point is wrong, therefore the proposed “solutions” are wrong.
Immigration is not a bad thing, but the circumstances that are created by a corrupt monopolistic State make the matter problematic for everyone involved. I look at this issue the same way that I look at the State school system. People ask if subject X, Y, or Z should be taught in State operated schools, but this is the wrong question. The correct question is should there be a State controlled public school system? The obvious answer to that question is “no.” The State, which preys on the people living within its “territory”, pushes its predatory agenda upon those attending its schools. The public school system is a State indoctrination system where students are regimented for State service, not service to mankind. The State controls territory, and the activities within that territory, by corrupt means. It rules through threats of aggression, force, and theft; we are slaves to the State, plain and simple. We are usually allowed to move around freely in our territorial prison, but no matter where we go, we are still enslaved. So these facts have to be established before we can ask the right questions. As it currently stands, the refusal to stop waves of immigrants from pouring into US controlled territory is immoral. But why? Not because people are wanting to leave one place for another, but because the State, which has no legitimate claims to any piece of territory, steals from the people within its claimed territory and makes them pay for the problems it creates. The State claims to be an arbiter in matters of personal property, but it is absurd to claim that we even have personal property under State rule. If we do not “pay” our taxes to the State for the privilege of being able to live in its territory, we can be evicted and even thrown into jail. Moreover, the State requires that we buy different kinds of insurance, and pay for certain services (whether we want them or not), and then it allows people to invade its territory (for its own political purposes) that do not have the same requirements placed upon them. The invaders get propped up with resources that are stolen from the people that already live there. That is a great evil. It only creates more animosity toward the State for its thieving practices, and it also results in immigrants becoming targets, even if they are peaceful people. Nothing about the current state of affairs is just. It is crooked and the whole matter is caused by the follies of statism. In a free society, all property is private property. There is no “public” property that anyone and everyone can access. Certainly, private property owners can provide access to their land or territory for different purposes, and in fact, many would for various reasons. This would settle the matter when it comes to outsiders immigrating into a territory, for no one has the right to access another person’s property without permission. But it is also true that private property owners can allow anyone at all, without any input from State rulers or anyone else, to access their property, no matter where the person came from. If a person flees State tyranny from across the world, the State calls him a criminal for leaving. That is an outrage. No person should be forced to live under tyranny. He should be able to secede, just as groups of people should be able to do the same. When the refugee enters territory controlled by another State, the State he runs to will call him a criminal (unless he runs to the US nowadays of course), yet the fundamental problem is what I have already stated. The State cannot own property legitimately. Its “lands” are maintained by the loot they steal from us and they have no moral right to claim whether a person can come or go. Since the monopolistic State should not exist at all, as a property owner, I have the natural right to allow access to my property to anyone I choose, or to no one at all. I could decide to allow one hundred people from another territory to live on my property. I am the only person that has the natural right to decide that. Each property owner should get to decide for himself whether he will have “open borders” or “closed borders” and no one on earth has the right to violate his natural rights of ownership. The State does not have these rights, though it illegitimately claims them for itself. Since we live under the fist of a corrupt Government that violates individual property rights, yes, immigration is a problem. But in a Stateless society, a society that has legitimate centers of authority, the issue could be solved rather easily, for decisions would be made by individual property owners. State officials, State politicians, and State policies will never solve the problem because they are the problem.
0 Comments
GregI think it is important to point out that being anti-Zionism (or being against what political Zionism has become) is not to be against the Israeli people, or to be against their right to security as a nation, nor is it the rejection of the idea that God may yet do something significant with ethnic Jews (I really don't know the answer to that). But I think it is erroneous to think that the modern day, atheistic State of Israel is the Israel of the Bible. Christians should oppose the idea that whatever the State of Israel does, Christians should support it. Even many Jewish people are against much of what gets done in the name of the Israeli State. Yet many Christians have been led to believe (wrongly in my opinion), that if they don't support the State of Israel, they are opposing God.
As far as the conflict going on right now between Israel and Palestine (now Iran is in the mix), all involved have blood on their hands. For professing Christians to support activities that are clearly antithetical to the teachings of Christ (by their own government, or the government of others), shows how deceiving propaganda can be. I am not a pacifist, I would protect my family from an aggressor, but I am against murder, by an individual or the State. Some of the same people who wrongly have a "my country right or wrong" mentality, also have a "I support the State of Israel right or wrong" mentality. Chuck Baldwin (the former politician, now a pastor) wrote an article recently and referred to the American politician (who also professes to be a Christian, and a pastor at that) who called for the annihilation of the Palestinian people (many of them are Christians). Baldwin says this type of attitude is what Zionism has come to promote. And he was once in that camp. (The article linked to above is worth your time.) I believe that God has plans for the followers of the Messiah, regardless of their ethnicity, and I look forward to the same city that Abraham looked forward to. I think many Hebrew people will have prominent places in the New Jerusalem. But today, many professing Christians are opposing Christ for a political position that involves an antichrist State. I pray for the people in Israel and in Palestine that are suffering because of the actions of those who are in power over them. Greg"As far as empirical—historical—evidence is concerned, proponents of the orthodox view face obvious embarrassment. The recently ended twentieth century was characterized by a level of human rights violations unparalleled in all of human history. In his book Death by Government, Rudolph Rummel estimates some 170 million government-caused deaths in the twentieth century. The historical evidence appears to indicate that, rather than protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens, governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security" (The Myth of National Defense, Hoppe, pg. 4).
In his book entitled “The Myth of National Defense”, Hans Hermann Hoppe has assembled essays from various writers to refute the argument that the State is necessary for the purpose of national defense. I would like to draw attention to the quote above, particularly the last line – “governments must be considered the greatest threat to human security.” Many tend to think that people (or countries) outside of the territory they live in are the greatest threat to their security, but this is false. The greatest threat to the safety and liberties of any people is the State that controls them. When the State gets to tell you what you can and cannot use for the means of defense, when it takes portions of your income away from you that could be used for furthering your independence, when business owners (the largest producers) have a third or more of their income stolen from them so the State can fund itself, and when the State can force you into its service or imprison or punish you for not doing its bidding, it is obvious that it isn’t people from other territories that we should be worried about. What does State control and taxation get us anyway? Consider that “the U.S. government commands a “defense” budget of $400 billion per annum1, a sum equal to the combined annual defense budgets of the next 24 biggest government spenders. It employs a worldwide network of spies and informants. However, it was unable to prevent commercial airliners from being hijacked and used as missiles against prominent civilian and military targets" (Hoppe, pg. 2). It has been estimated that State Governments have been responsible for the deaths of 170 million people in the twentieth century (see R.J. Rummel’s Death by Government). One hundred and seventy million people. Dead because of politicians. All in the name of protecting the State, spreading democracy, seeking glory, or maintaining control over the lives of people. The mass killings carried out by Communist rulers get a lot of attention, but the US and Great Britain contributed greatly to the number of deaths, especially of citizens. Both were responsible for the indiscriminate bombing of German cities, and we must not forget that the US is the only State that has ever dropped atomic weapons on civilian cities. There was absolutely nothing necessary about this evil act, and it sickens me to think there are people who try to justify what the US Government did to the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those who called for this, and those who carried it out, are guilty of murder. The US Government and its military are responsible for millions of deaths over the last one hundred and fifty years in the Southern States, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Japan, Iraq (including at least 500,000 Iraqi children through food sanctions) and in other places, and not for defensive purposes. Much more can be said, but I will lastly mention that the US Government has sold billions of dollars of weaponry to other murderous Governments, all for political positioning and riches. And yet people will stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and pledge allegiance to the flag of the Empire. I listened to Dennis Prager and Tom Woods speaking on an old episode of the Dennis Prager show one day. I have no interest in listening to Prager, but I was interested in hearing what Woods might say in response to questions from Prager. Prager gushed over the economic policies of the Austrian School of Economics, but he admitted he has a problem with the insistence that the interventionism of the US is a bad thing. Prager thinks it is a good thing for the world that the US has the strongest military, and he thinks it is a good thing for the US to try to police the world. Woods, who acknowledged he too once held to this view, said he doesn’t trust the Government’s propaganda machine and believes the regime in Washington (republicans and democrats) is corrupt and that the US Government is not our friend. He further stated he does not see it as an institution of protection but that it is an institution that “expropriates, lies, and brainwashes kids into thinking if the Government doesn’t watch over them”, things won’t be good for them. Woods stated it bluntly: “I don’t trust these people, I think they are liars, I think they are bloodthirsty, and we are better off without these interventions.” I was glad to hear that he didn’t soften the explanation of his views just because Prager’s views differ on this topic (listen to interview here). Christians, of all people, should be leading the way on this. If anyone should be against invading other territories and killing the people there, it should be Christians. But many professing Christians cheer on the mass starvations, economic sanctions, and bombings of innocent people, all for the sake of American “pride.” They serve the Kingdom of America and not the Kingdom of God. We need more people to get their minds right and to start preaching against the kingdoms of men and their statist agendas. Many don’t because they are afraid of the backlash. Their prayer lives, their outreach, even their messages revolve around propping up and promoting “American ideals.” The pulpits they are speaking from are pulpits of statolatry, they certainly aren’t pulpits for Christianity. 1. The Biden Administration submitted a 2023 budget request to Congress for $813 billion for national defense – defense.gov . |
Greg and KariWe are a Christian couple committed to following the one true God, the Father, and the one Lord Messiah, his only begotten Son. Categories
All
|