(01-26-2026, 05:53 PM)benji wrote: (That's aside from how the argument is solely about humans.)
this example was used in order to avoid the example of letting a bunch of muslims settle in your land, become the majority population, change the laws, and execute the remaining former occupants for being infidels, only to discover that they are inferior at upholding all the ideals the former society held to, due to their incurious adherence to tradition which won't allow them to innovate, ask questions, or learn to the extent of the former society
which goes back to the original point of deportation not being an admission of inferiority, but to preserve what your culture perceives as superiority
Quote:Protectionism isn't libertarian, it's socialist, it assumes the state always knows better than any individuals and thus has a duty to "protect" those individuals from freely trading with who they wish. Socialism is based on the assumption that everyone will be exploited if individuals are allowed do as they personally wish, hence why individualism needs to be abolished for a single mandatory action by all. If Angela, and the other "libertarians" who support protectionism, rejects the argument for free trade then she has no basis to advocate for any libertarian positions as they all oppose the notion that the state knows better than the individual. She should simply stop claiming to be a libertarian and admit she wants a system that creeps ever closer to socialism through permanent self-justification for any and all state actions.
I understand that protectionism refers to trade, but he said "look at this like you would businesses in the free market," the "this" being the global immigration situation she was speaking of, so in the analogy protectionism means protecting your country's interests through deportations
1 user liked this post: