Truer words have never been said. As old saying goes: mongrels bark at people passing by, because they can do nothing more.
Trump for US President?
- Thread starter Kiopa_Matt
- Start date
Truer words have never been said. As old saying goes: mongrels bark at people passing by, because they can do nothing more.
Once you realize that Donald Trump is a plant for Hillary Clinton, everything he does starts to make a lot more sense.
you can check out his financial disclosure, id say he is pretty much where he says he is financially Donald Trump's personal financial disclosure report - CNNPolitics.com
Tell kiopa matt to stop making tags about himself.
I though credit card carter gets presidency. It's time for a second black president.
Nuclear bombs on everyone who isn't a serpwoo user.
I though credit card carter gets presidency. It's time for a second black president.
Nuclear bombs on everyone who isn't a serpwoo user.
Last edited:
This. A statement claiming Democrats have no chance at winning the election simply because they've held office the last 8 years makes me think someone doesn't know politics very well. Most Democrats would LOVE to see Donald Trump win the primary. He wouldn't stand a chance with Indpendent swing voters, which will decide the 2016 election. I also think it will be between Hillary and Bush. Not sure who wins though.
Right. So the most likely scenario is that your neighborhood Homeowner's Association doesn't allow poor brown people around you and your neighbors' fat white asses. So they keep them out. It's their right.
But unless you plan on permanently segregating yourself off from the rest of society, there's no way you can guarantee surrounding property/land owners will be
- White and racist (or "diversity averse").
- White.
But if you need to venture out beyond a 3-mile radius, there's a good chance you'll run into plenty of awful, awful diversity.
And since there won't be any zoning laws, land-owners could potentially purchase land and build low-income housing huts around the general perimeter of your fortified Haven of Whiteness.
Have you thought this through at all?
charlesmartel is a white supremacist anti semitic piece of shit that paints people with a broad brush, so the answer is definitely no.
Why don't you read the article again. I don't think you read it carefully. Did you miss this part?
Assuming you're an American, please let me know what percentage of your neighborhood is white. Even white liberals prefer to live in white neighborhoods and bolt at the first sign of "diversity."
I get that he's "diversity averse," but he certainly has a right to dislike people outside of his own race and culture.
I actually think egalitarian-minded folks could potentially benefit from an AnCap society in that racist shitheads would group together and leave everyone else alone.
What I want to know is if Mr. Martel actually grasps how alone he'd be, considering MILLIONS of 3rd world peasants would likely flock to stateless territories in order to take advantage of free market opportunities, zero taxes, freedoms, etc. Even IF conditions in AnCap societies were worse than they are now (in the US for example), they would probably still be much better than most 3rd world countries. This would incentivize a mass influx of (in Mr. Martel's mind) "undesirables." And because they'd be desperate for any work they could get, larger employers could exploit the fuck out of their cheap labor. Employers could even exchange housing accommodations for labor, effectively creating small Worker Communities. Since these businesses are getting their labor so cheaply, they could potentially outperform their competition, expand, buy more land, hire more cheap labor, build more communities, and go from there.
There's no way Mr. Martel's racist Homeowners Association(s) and land owner(s) could completely insulate themselves from this type of thing.
Even worse (for Mr. Martel), wealthy families and ambitious entrepreneurs from filthy brown countries would be drawn to stateless territories (no taxes or minimum wage laws? Yes please), bringing their filthy brown families and filthy brown associates with them.
There's no reason our dear Mr. Martel should expect any of these filthy brown people to keep a "safe" distance from his fat, pasty-white ass, unless he plans on never leaving his fat, pasty-white neighborhood (or the surrounding fat, pasty-white neighborhoods).
My city is roughly 68% white. Remainder is Asian, black, and Hispanic. My specific neighborhood is mostly Asian (I'm the only non-Asian in my cul-de-sac).
And yes, I read the paragraphs.
And the only way your property title could be restricted by another party is if your property rests on someone else's land, right?
And since the developer (presumably) OWNS the land, he could restrict your property titles, correct?
If so, a racist landowner could buy a decent plot of land, develop houses, set some general ground rules (i.e. "No Browns"), and only allow whites to buy or rent property on that land.
But that doesn't stop a non-racist (or non-white) person from buying land AROUND (or close to) the racist developer's land and allowing filthy brown people onto his developments.
Right?
I guess the point you're missing is that, sure, there will be places where there will be "diversity". And there will be places where there won't. Some areas might only have Mormons. Others only whites or blacks. The thing is that people who want to live in non-diverse areas will be able to do so without worrying about the "benefits" of diversity.
In areas where people are not keen on diversity, over time the land use would most likely be governed by restrictive land covenants. Just the way it used to be. Plus, roads would be privately owned so some areas might have black or Mormon only roads. Much like you see in Israel with roads only for Jews and others only for Palestinians (Hebron: Separate roads for Jews, Palestinians - Israel News, Ynetnews) but unlike those roads the decision would not be made by a government but by the road owner. Also, sidewalks will be private like they used to be. (In LA, there are actually brass plaques in some sidewalks that state the sidewalk is private and permission to pass is revokable or something close.) So, if a person manages to buy piece of land and house what you think are "filthy brown people" there's no guarantee they would be able to get to the development or even leave it since they'll have to transit on other people's private roads or sidewalks.
There might be entire areas full of only blacks. And there might be entire areas full of only whites. And some areas where it's full of San Francisco hippy-socialists and Third Worlders.
Okay, gotcha. The point I was making is that you'll never fully escape "diversity," and market anarchism would most likely exacerbate the influx of non-whites into the general geographical area your covenant resides in. That's what I meant when I said your community would probably be a "droplet of [concentrated] white in a polychromatic sea of diversity."
The only reason I bring this up is because xenophobes might actually be better off in countries with semi-blanket immigration restrictions (like the US) than in an AnCap society. But it sounds like you've thought this out well enough, I guess.
Personally, I think racial segregation wouldn't be as strong as you might imagine in an AnCap society. Intelligent business owners generally don't discriminate against potential customers, and would most likely collaborate with land owners and other entrepreneurs to keep roads as open as much possible to encourage business.