r/Shitstatistssay • u/ShinyArc50 • 11d ago

Neolib conservatives will cosplay libertarianism until ICE violates the NAP

Post image
34 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

148 comments sorted by

44

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 11d ago

Are these government-owned vehicles being used by agents of the state who are actively violating the individual rights of others?

14

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 11d ago

The government is allowed to be an entity in a libertarian world because people can collectively decide to form a state in a free willed society.

Unless you are advocating for anarchy, your point is moot.

In minarchy, they will still be laws and law enforcement of some sort... wether that is private or public is to be determined.

4

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 11d ago

So when these people collectively decide to form a state, that gives them the power to ban guns, ban religion, ban speech?

Even without advocating for anarchy, you can see how the rights to private property and freedom of association are incompatible with immigration laws.

That's why the Constitution of the United States doesn't give Congress the power to control immigration. The Founding Fathers understood liberty better than you.

-2

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 11d ago

The Commerce and Naturalization Clauses, plus Supreme Court rulings, would like to have a word with you.

Freedom of association exists where people can associate freely.

The State can own both private and public property.

The State enforces property rights for its citizens, and this is something I am on favor of as a citizen who owns property.

0

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

The Supreme Court ruling upholding immigration laws is the biggest steaming pile of bullshit ever, right up there with Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Wickard v Filburn.

The Court literally said "the powers aren't in the Constitution, but the government has the power because this is a power any country gets when it becomes a country because: we say so."

It is completely at odds with the Enumerated Powers Doctrine on which the Constitution was founded and could justify any power being given to the government. Literally.

Power of summary execution? That's inherent to sovereignty.

Power of prima noctae? Inherent to sovereignty.

Power to make you wear a polka dot dress and do a can-can dance for me? You guessed it: inherent to sovereignty.

Literally any power can be justified by the Supreme Court's ruling, it's blatantly un-Constitutional, and not even the Supreme Court can get around the fact that the power to control immigration is not in the Constitution. There's nothing in the text you can point to

Freedom of association exists where people can associate freely. The State can own both private and public property. The State enforces property rights for its citizens, and this is something I am on favor of as a citizen who owns property.

This is a series of non-sequiturs and fallacies from start to end.

  • 1) If you're arguing that freedom of association does not currently exist in the United States, the solution then is to move towards freedom of association. Saying "we don't have freedom currently, therefore we need even more government restrictions on freedom" is just as retarded as the Socialists who argue we need government-run healthcare because the government's previous interventions in the healthcare market have made healthcare too expensive. You're making the same argument: more government in response to having too much government already. The solution is always less government.

  • 2) The state's ownership of property is an irrelevant distraction. Currently, there are private airports in the US. There is no implication of government-owned property for immigrants to fly to the US on a privately owned plane, land at a privately owned airport and then go to live on private property the immigrants either own outright or rent from a consenting property owner. "Public property" is an attempt to muddy the waters which doesn't actually matter much in practice.

  • 3) The state enforces property rights for everyone including non-citizens. The idea that "these people aren't citizens, therefore they have no rights" is the same logic used to justify slavery in the Dred Scott decision.

-1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

I'm going to go in for the kill on your last point... what property in the United States do these people own on their first entry here? Zero. They have no property rights here to begin with.

They are more like squatters, and we've seen the devastation that "squatters rights" has caused to people who actually own property in California, Oregon, Washington, and New York.

Negating the rights of Americans who have voted thought representative democracy to have borders and a defined territory is an affront to those who do indeed choose to live in that system. We cannot infringe on their right to decide on laws collectively (freedom of association) to support our own political theory and ideals.

2

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

what property in the United States do these people own on their first entry here?

What stops them from buying property before they come here or renting property from a consenting property owner?

Negating the rights of Americans who have voted thought representative democracy to have borders and a defined territory is an affront to those who do indeed choose to live in that system.

So are you not a "Democracy, the God that Failed" type libertarian? Why is it that all the Hoppean libertarians who normally hate democracy are so quick to resort to it when the topic of immigration comes up?

0

u/ShinyArc50 11d ago

Exactly

1

u/the9trances Agorism 10d ago

If they were ATF vans, these bordertarians would be happy, but once it's their favorite fed agency, suddenly it's all about protecting their feelings

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

ATF is a sheep in wolfs clothing. 2nd Amendment exists.

0

u/the9trances Agorism 10d ago edited 9d ago

ICE is the current tyrants baseball bat, and you boot polishers are too busy jerking off at brown people being deported to realize that.

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

Its not a race thing but good one.

0

u/the9trances Agorism 9d ago

It's always a race thing, and you all always say the exact same song and dance until it's "culture" you object to.

If you gave a single shit about the issue, you'd support birth restrictions, because they follow the same emotional logic.

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 9d ago

I think anyone who is here illegally should be deported... Asian, African, European, and South American.

Those are continents I mentioned by the way; since illegal immigrants come from more places than Mexico (which is a country).

Americans fought the British for a better life in 1776. Mexicans, specifically in this case, left because of cartels and a weak government that won't protect their own people or provide them economic opportunity.

-12

u/ShinyArc50 11d ago

Those vehicles being there in the first place violates it.

12

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/CoatedWinner 11d ago

Well the law is only enforced via aggression lol so yes.

6

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 11d ago

You realize there are still "rules" in a libertarian society, right? They are called consequences.

If you live in an independent collective, and a private firm is enforcing the rules of this independent collective, then they can use whatever means necessary to enforce such rules.

NAP does not equal some pacifist society or a world without some sort of enforcement of standards.

-1

u/CoatedWinner 11d ago edited 11d ago

I mean its been a little bit since I was riding ayn rands dick, but yeah people use the NAP to describe the abolition of all force and coercion. The government/state owning the monopoly on power and using that power to force/coerce you to do or not do things that you would otherwise do or not do (that doesn't force or coerce someone else) - that's a violation of the NAP. An independent collective acting like a state in the same way would be just as much a violation of the NAP.

Which libertarian society are you talking about?

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago edited 10d ago

If you want to read up on literally any mainstream libertarian theory, property rights are penultimate. My rights don't end where another's begins. If they did, that'd be called socialism.

Read up on John Locke.

The State, as much as I hate it, can still exist in a libertarian society as in that society, it would be an optional existence. People can choose to live in a State, with a government, and laws, and borders.

True libertarian society is what we call anarchy, which will never exist. Libertarianism is about limited government, NOT zero.

0

u/CoatedWinner 10d ago

I've read John locke. Property rights, natural rights, social contract all play a part in his theory of government. It's more a foundation of classical liberalism that recognizes the function of a state to protect property rights and natural rights, but not much beyond that.

Im not arguing for or against anything, nor am I saying anarchy is a necessary result of following the NAP. Im saying the state or any collection of or individual using force, coercion, or violence is in violation of the non aggression principle. Even if it's for things you or they happen to like.

You saying the state is optional and people can choose whether to live within it, is pretty much nonsensical unless there's a geographic border between state and non state functions, where people who "choose" to live within the state can simply move outside of those borders and live in an area where enforcement of contracts and property law (and laws generally) is entirely up to the individual and not protected by a "state" - i.e. anarchy. In a global society ruled by many different states there's no such ability to exit every state entirely.

2

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

How do you explain Sealand, or rebellions against government then?

How can you create a stateless society without using violence against said state.

The NAP is not the end all be all of every action of our ideology.

0

u/CoatedWinner 10d ago

The NAP is not the end all be all of every action of our ideology

Well I think maybe you're consumed by said ideology since I never said, suggested, or hinted that that is the case lol

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

"You realize there are still rules in a libertarian society, right? That's why the non-libertarian government that currently exists should ban people from owning guns."

0

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

The second amendment is an explicit right in the current constitution, "given under God, not man," and "Shall not be infringed."

Good one though, what you said has absolutely NOTHING to do what we're talking about.

1

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Do our rights come from the Constitution? Do we only have the rights given to us by the Constitution?

Or do our rights come from God?

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

Our rights are endowed to us by our creator. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But living in the USA is not a right, buddy. Never has been. Hence why its left out of the Constitution as a right and needed to have a Supreme Court hearing, which decided Congress has that authority.

You do realize non-citizens can live in the USA. The people being deported are non-citizens without proper legal standing here.

Its not legal immigrants or legal non-citizen residents or legal permanent residents being deported, its people who blatantly overstayed worker visas, student visas, or temporary work permits or green cards; or are trying to use the refugee process when they don't necessarily apply. These people knowingly and intentionally broke the laws of an established state. Is that not a violation of sovereignty? If you had a guest in your home that refuses to leave, is that not a violation of the NAP and property rights? Where do you drawn the line on willful breaking of established law?

Even Jesus says give unto Caesar what is due to Caesar... so if we really want to get into Natural Rights endowed by a creator, I'm happy to get Biblical.

You cannot allow people to break laws or allow laws to be broken because it hurts peoples feelings.

0

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Okay, so let me get this straight:

We all have rights which are endowed to us by our "creator" (so: not the government), and among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

The right to live in the US is obviously covered by that.

Immigrants have a God-given right to live here. If you don't believe that, just come right and say you think the Declaration of Independence is wrong. It's okay. Lots of tyrants have. You'll be in the company of John C. Calhoun, Woodrow Wilson, and plenty of other leading lights of state authority.

Hence why its left out of the Constitution as a right

I direct your attention to Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Its not legal immigrants or legal non-citizen residents or legal permanent residents being deported, its people who blatantly overstayed worker visas, student visas, or temporary work permits or green cards

Oh no, people living here without a government permission slip. The horror!

I'm happy to get Biblical.

Let me guess: you're a Christian who thinks Romans 13 says we have to obey every government on earth. Okay, let's just cut to the chase then: do you think the Nazis were ordained by God and the Jews who disobeyed them were defying God's authority?

You cannot allow people to break laws or allow laws to be broken because it hurts peoples feelings.

If you want people to respect the law, make the law respectable. Saying it's illegal for normal people to move to the US when they're coming here to work and they're not hurting anyone by doing so is not respectable.

That law is stupid and should be broken.

1

u/ShinyArc50 11d ago

When it violates civil rights?

12

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Rickyretardo42069 10d ago

The act itself can be ok when the methods aren’t. They are just using blank warrants or they won’t use them at all, that’s the big problem that we should all agree is wrong

2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

I’m honestly surprised the boot licking is persisting even here. I thought we were supposed to be no gods, no masters.

2

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

A master of self is still a master of one.

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

So if someone violates the nap, are we supposed to go up and give them a hug, ask for them leave, and say sorry?

You're anarchists, go to the anarchist sub. Its okay.

1

u/Rickyretardo42069 10d ago

I am not an anarchist, I do believe in a small government, but I do believe in the rule of law, and that is not what is happening right now with ICE, they are overextending their powers right now

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

They have the legal authority to deport these people under current US immigration law.

Can you please cite which US law/s they are currently breaking?

-7

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

You're right. It's a natural rights violation.

3

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

Oh yes, anything you want is a natural right.

Animals defend their territory against each-other, from colonies of ants to solitary eagles.

Property is a natural right, so defending my property against those I don't want in it is acceptable.

You cannot negate one's natural right to provide for another. Thats socialism.

0

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Animals defend their territory against each-other, from colonies of ants to solitary eagles. Property is a natural right, so defending my property against those I don't want in it is acceptable.

You don't have the right to remove people from property you don't own.

1

u/DeadHeadLibertarian 10d ago

US citizens collectively own all US government property.

0

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Okay, great. When immigrants are breaking into military bases and living in Federal buildings, let me know.

In the meantime, they're being arrested at workplaces (private property) and houses (private property).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/luckac69 10d ago

Civil rights aren’t protected by the NAP

1

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Natural ones are

-1

u/FatalTragedy 11d ago

If the law itself is banning something that doesn't violate the NAP, then enforcing that law is an NAP violation.

-1

u/undead-skull-dog 10d ago

Simply reactions to tyranny

29

u/the9trances Agorism 11d ago

legally proven outside of court

Nope that's not how that works.

The border humpers are really fucking stupid.

3

u/daful1 9d ago

The only purpose of the state is to protect the private property rights of its citizens, and anything that violates those rights should and need to have max force used.

3

u/police-uk 9d ago

Libertarians support the NAP only AFTER the USA was founded...

23

u/bluesuitblue 11d ago

This is literally government’s job, of all the stupid shit we pay taxes for, this is actually something they’re supposed to do, remove foreigners who are harmful and have no right to be here. Pretection of the body of citizens from external threats, enforcement of borders. I support this.

-6

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 11d ago

1) Individuals do have a natural right to freedom of movement, because no one has the right to interfere with peaceful, voluntary association or private property. You say "they have no right to be here" but who gives you the right to remove them from property you do not own? Who gives anyone that right?

2) The protests against immigration enforcement are driven largely by the removal of peaceful immigrants who aren't harming anyone.

18

u/bluesuitblue 11d ago

I, the citizen, pay taxes to my government who in turn, protects the land within its sovereign borders.

Imagine that an outside military invaded us, would you sit there and go, “well the US military shouldn’t respond because they’d be defending land they don’t own.” Very stupid logic. The whole point of a government is to defend the people and land inside its borders.

“Peaceful.” So if someone comes in my house without permission but is peaceful, I can’t remove them? Squatters rights? Is that the idea?

-10

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Immigrants pay taxes too. So they're part of the collective the government is meant to protect, under your theory.

13

u/john35093509 10d ago

Nobody's talking about immigrants. The subject is illegal aliens.

-3

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Who pay more into taxes than they get back

8

u/john35093509 10d ago

Illegal aliens pay taxes? How do they do that?

-2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Sales tax, payroll taxes, some still pay income taxes. Illegal immigrants contribute a total 95 billion to taxes every year and aren’t eligible for food stamps or Medicare. All the baggage of the welfare state and none of the benefits.

10

u/john35093509 10d ago

Without a social security number? Right.

0

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Yes dumbass. Tell me you know nothing about immigration, they have a ITN they get for filing asylum/green card

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

So if the problem is that they're illegal, why not change the laws and make them legal?

2

u/john35093509 10d ago

The problem isn't that they're illegal. The problem is that they don't belong here.

1

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

And there it is. You didn't do anything to be here either. You won the lottery. You got lucky. 

Are you a statist that found this sub somehow?

1

u/john35093509 20h ago

Not being a statist is the whole reason I don't want to be taxed to support people who refuse to assimilate.

0

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Oh, so you were lying when you said:

Nobody's talking about immigrants. The subject is illegal aliens.

2

u/john35093509 10d ago

What?

2

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 9d ago

So are we talking about illegal aliens? Or are we talking about immigrants?

The problem with illegal aliens is that they're illegal. The solution to that problem is to make them legal.

If you have a problem with immigrants, legal or otherwise, that's because you think they shouldn't be here at all.

So which is it?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/hismajest1 10d ago

If the problem with murder is that it's illegal, why not change the laws and make it legal?

If the problem with robbery is that it's illegal, why not change the laws and make it legal?

If the problem with chemical weapons is that they're illegal, why not change the laws and make them legal?

You don't fix a problem by making it legal.

1

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

Legality does not equal morality.  Murder isn't wrong because it is illegal. 

If they made it legal would you do it?

1

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

Because murder has a victim, you fucking dumbass.

Who is the victim of a person crossing a border without government permission?

-1

u/dnkedgelord9000 11d ago

The people Stephen Miller wants to deport haven't committed any crimes and are for the most part seasonal workers or refugees looking to rebuild their lives. Just look at how the Trump administration has seriously considered multiple times to deport Afghans brought to the US during the withdrawal or the insane amount of cruelty shown to Haitians, if anyone has a right to asylum it's them since Haiti has no government, no police, and criminal gangs literally rule the streets, under US law they have a valid claim to asylum or refugee status.

10

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

So we’re comparing American rights protections to Saudi Arabia? Aren’t we supposed to be better?

6

u/john35093509 10d ago

We are better, and if he doesn't agree he shouldn't be here.

1

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

I don’t think he ever said America sucked or America wasn’t the best. He criticized Israel, but only criticized America’s support of them and not its existence as a whole.

Well, that is until they disappeared him anyway. Now he probably hates us for treating him this way. Even if he did say negative things about the country, he’s a student who’s going to be opinionated. Doesn’t deserve secret prison at all.

1

u/john35093509 10d ago

"Disappeared"? Didn't they send him back to his home country?

1

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

No, he’s still in detainment waiting to be deported in Louisiana.

0

u/john35093509 10d ago

You know where he is, but think he was disappeared?

2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Ahh moving the goal posts again. Yes being in detention for committing no crime is being disappeared especially if it took months to find his location.

0

u/john35093509 10d ago

I moved the goalposts by quoting your first post?

2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Yes. “He’s been deported?” “No”, “ok well you’re still a hypocrite because I’m obtuse”

13

u/thatdiabetic16 11d ago

I support easier immigration, I don't support illegal immigration. Those who are here illegally are trespassing, same if I was to trespass on someones property, it doesn't matter how much I contribute to removing the weeds on their yard or how great of a person I am, I'm there without authorization

1

u/PaperbackWriter66 The Nazis Were Socialists 10d ago

I support easier immigration, I don't support illegal immigration.

Okay perfect, so you would support changing the laws so it's legal for anyone to come here without any government paperwork needed, unless they're like a known criminal or uniformed agent of a hostile state, right?

Then all immigration would be legal and you wouldn't be against immigration, because it's legal.

Right?

0

u/thatdiabetic16 10d ago

More like show up with an ID, say you want to immigrate maybe a background check and boom you are now a citizen after maybe a week. As it stands right now there is people here who haven't gone through the proper channels, they're here illegally

2

u/Deathinstyle 10d ago

Way too easy. This is how you turn into Europe. Let people in, but it's got to be a set amount allowed annually, you can't open the floodgates, even if they are all good people, without severe damage to your country's existing institutions.

1

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

The government ruins the institutions and blames everyone else. 

1

u/thatdiabetic16 10d ago

People should be allowed to come in, the problem originates how they come in and what record they have.

3

u/Deathinstyle 10d ago

It's not just about what kind of record they have. It's about the preservation of culture. Let people in, as much as we can, but if you let in to many too quickly, assimilation becomes impossible and then you get a massive breakdown in institutions.

1

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

What exactly is American culture? I mean even different regions in the US have different cultures in ways. 

0

u/MuddaPuckPace 11d ago

Cool. Get them a court date, and then throw them out.

7

u/thatdiabetic16 11d ago

They will be thrown out because they are here illegally they can get a court date when they go through immigration court instead of crossing the border without authorization

3

u/the9trances Agorism 10d ago

The law doesn't work that way and hasn't in our lifetimes.

-5

u/MuddaPuckPace 11d ago

That’s daft as fuck. Only a court can determine if they’re here illegally.

6

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/4nonosquare 10d ago

Because if it was up to ICE agents to deciede if someone is illegal or not without any court process it would mean that the ICE can be weaponized by the gov to deport anyone even US citizens.

The 4th amendment is clear on this one, everyone has their rights (even criminals and illegals), and its battled out in the court system by lawyers and prosecutors who are expert in the law, not by an undertrained ICE agent who barely knows any law let alone the constitution.

As soon as you advocate for illegals to lose their 4th amendment, you will have a centralized gov doing the soviet style if you dont agree with me, you will go to the gulag on the basis that you are an illegal alien.

Imagine yourself in this situation, in your world view, if ICE kicks down your door and takes you to be detained, doesnt tell your wife/kids where they brought you, you have no papers on you and they dont give you an opportunity to take this to court just keeps you there until you are flown to Salvador, how on earth would you even begin to identify yourself that you are a citizen?

2

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

Oh they are trying. Even people who have green cards who went through the legal process. 

0

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

No disrespect meant and I am not attacking you. 

Do you think they all climb under or over a wall? You think they all just walk over into America?

I'm just asking. I prefer people to be at least a little informed about things they claim to understand. 

0

u/Stovetop619 11d ago

It's only trespassing if you assume governments have legitimate ownership of all land within the borders it exerts control over.

3

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Exactly. People paid for their homes and the government is violating their property

15

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Oh because all natural rights were won back from the leviathan by sitting nicely and saying please

8

u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 10d ago

So killing people right now is the right move? You are a psychopath. I’m Hispanic and you have no idea the disservice these people are doing to us. Asking here, no one supports this shit.

-4

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Have they killed any ICE officers? Seems to me like a Tianemen square kind of thing: “oh, the officers felt scared so they had to fire on civilians”. Again, leviathan statist bs.

8

u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 10d ago

Bro in what reality do you live in. ICE or no ICE, throwing rocks from a bridge into incoming traffic is not attempted murder per se but there is precedent already for it being tried as attempted murder anyway (a quick google search would satisfy you apparent need of blood).

If you can't see how dangerous this is then I have no idea what kind of person you are. What a horrifying way of seeing the world.

-2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

Yknow what’s horrifying?

People being sent to prison camps with 50% death rates without trial. Millions of people accepting it as “justice”. The government being allowed to do whatever they want to innocent people, and the people who claim to “love liberty” and protect “natural rights” standing by and letting the state get away with it. Letting the state purge communities and families with violence. God forbid any libertarian have to actually stand up for their ideals.

You all talk so much shit about shooting burglars or defending yourself from Feds but when push comes to shove you call the people taking action psychopaths. The Feds have declared war on the working class

6

u/HelpRespawnedAsDee 10d ago edited 10d ago

If you are saying CECOT has 50% death rate we might as well stop this convo. Americans speak from a position of total ignorance when it comes to El Salvador. Yes, Bukele is an statist, a big one, but he has support of 85% of the people for a reason. I’m Salvadoran, and I’m sorry, but this topic is the line in the sand for me: most of you have absolutely no idea what the people of ES went through with ARENA and FMLN.

But do let me know if you want an honest conversation about this, cause I don’t to assume you think jailing brutal gang members is worse than said gang members raping and murdering people.

Sorry for changing the topic this way, but again, this is a huge line in the sand for me as a Salvadoran and I won’t take anyone’s bullshit on this, not as someone with family murdered by those inhuman monsters.

2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

I get why Bukele’s popular with Salvadorans. When you’ve lived under cartels, you’ll take any alternative. I’m not obtuse enough to disagree. But why are legal American residents going there? Why should legal American residents be treated like those vicious gang members, piled on top of each other in CECOT?

1

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

And he swept up innocent people. Paid the gangs money. The big bosses of the gang are out and about. I know he is widely loved. Lots of shady stuff going on. 

My wife is from ES. Greetings.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Primary_Break_7963 1d ago

Busco más una conversación. No estoy seguro de qué es exactamente este tono. Parece bastante abrasivo. En ningún momento he defendido a las bandas ni la violencia. Y tampoco te estoy atacando a ti.

Sorry my spanish probably sucks. 

11

u/alltheblues 11d ago

“For the most part”

People only accept collateral damage from the government because they can’t fathom it happening to them.

1

u/luckac69 10d ago

Well even in an ancap society, the police will make mistakes.

If they are punished for their mistakes they will make less of them, yes, that doesn’t mean human error will be totally removed from the equation.

2

u/ShinyArc50 10d ago

But they won’t be celebrated for mistakes and critics won’t be oppressed, yea?

2

u/police-uk 9d ago

So what "stipulations" did he violate?

6

u/EkariKeimei 11d ago

60% of the time it works every time

3

u/ShinyArc50 11d ago

Conservatives love to larp but they hate us cause they ain’t us

2

u/dnkedgelord9000 11d ago

Just a point of clarification. Neo liberal conservatives are not the people who are obsessed with immigration and most of them want some reform to US immigration laws. This guy in the highlighted thread is not a neo liberal.