Virginia they are looking at a bill to kill in the hoo ha

sounds great

give it 2 years and we can legally abort stupid people

again the left destroys itself

checkmate amy schumer

building the wall is just another step for the government to completely control who can or cannot leave the USA. Change my mind (don't know if this point has been raised about the wall yet, if so feel free to message me with links of discussions)

Why change your mind? That's already correct.

That's exactly what walls are for

so why is the population which argues most for less government control in strongest support for the wall?

Perhaps because a static wall would net the same effect as a massive government apparatus. It is about achieving an outcome with the smallest possible government

Protecting the boarder is one of the functions the smaller govt people are fine with

Imagine the sheer size of ICE/Border Patrol agency if it should have the same effect as a wall.

read my first statement. A wall can prohibit crossing the border from both sides

Imagine a radical faction taking control over the USA and persecuting political opponents. Now total control over the border means pollitical enemies have it that much harder to get out of the states

It's somehow a related argument as in the free speach debate. Infringing on free speach gives that tool to whichever faction in power. As soon as you find yourself on the wrong side of political oppinion, those changes can backfire very strong

If a radical faction takes control over the government anything can be used against the people

IDs, national parks, tax returns, etc

The state will always be used against against the people. It's very existence necessarily violates the NAP.

Build the iron curtain!

https://youtu.be/w7Yfg1vLdVA

We have more guns than people. The only radicals with anything close to a shot at controlling the U.S. would be Ancaps and they have a reputation for hating gov't in any form.

Then again there are also the 3%ers and the rest of the Libertarian movement.

I fully expect Motti tactics to be used if a radicalized U.S. gov't tries to deal with counter revolutionaries.

Not in any form, just in monopolized form.

```"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights."
-Murray N. Rothbard.```

```"Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion."
-Murray N. Rothbard.```

@Hugh_Mongoose Stereotyping Republicans as the party known for wanting smaller government is detached. Libertarians want smaller government.
That doesn't mean the right wouldn't desire smaller government. They're just taking a realistic approach to it. See also: Ben Shapiro.

See also: ✡

@ZetaBlues I did not want to imply that the whole party wants that, however I think it is fair to say, that (from how it is shown in European Media), the group that wants small government is mainly represented by the republican party, e.g. The Tea Party, Tom and Rand Paul, etc while I do not know about any major representatives of small government from the Democrats. I think that the LDC and the DFC can be dismissed as fairly small groups without much political power. However this is how I perceive it from Europe. If you tell me this is not the case, and libertarians are equally devided between Dems and Reps (at least those who don't vote third party) then I will accept that.

From Australia, I percieve Democrats and Republicans as having as many significant differences as Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, i.e., none.

Differences in semiotics but not semantics.

Because we suffer from illegal immigration in may ways? I see it as the nation being a physical person. The border is the skin

Oh I missed posts. Craap

Rand Paul only runs Republican because they did daddy dirty when he ran for Republican.
But Libertarians aren't purely on the right or left on the political spectrum. They all argue for smaller government and less government spending. By your own admission, your understanding of American politics is limited, thus the debate is over. You will never see a Libertarian arguing for the border wall. At worst, they're ambivalent.

And because I have a limited understanding of American politics I strive to learn more about it. That's why I raise a question and hope to hear from people who know more about it, so I can broaden my understanding. That's what discussions/conversations are all about. Either you have a good point and are able to convey it, or you get corrected and learn something.

I've seen libertarians arguing for the border wall, but for it to be crowd funded instead of tax funded.

Are they self-professed Libertarians or are they actual libertarians?

Admittedly, I'm not an actual fan of libertarians but still.

they TRIED the crowdfunding thing though

it made millions, but it wasn't remotely ENOUGH

I'm not averse to letting states help fund it. They can do amazing things.