Why do right wingers have a problem with illegal immigration? Isn't freedom of movement supposed to be part of capitalism? Not being allowed to hire illegal immigrants and them being deported is literally big government intervention in the economy. Plus how does someone crossing an arbitrary line in the sand effect even effect them? Most illegals don't go on to purposely commit other crimes than social security fraud (which they have to do to be employed)
Why do right wingers have a problem with illegal immigration...
Literally feels>reals, that's why.
It is, but you have to understand those dweebs are pro-capitalist because it's the current state of affairs and besides socialism is something wanted by those icky leftist liberal communists. This is why the smartest right-wingers(still retards though) proclaim they're anti-capitalists, since they vaguely get the connection between the immigration and market system, even though they still deliver half-baked socdem trash.
Imho neolibs are the only respectable capitalists, since at least they aim to be effective executioners of capitalist interests.
right wingers literally do not know what capitalism is. they conflate everything they like with capitalism and everything they don't like with communism.
Most right wingers are nationalists. The only reason they like Capitalism is because there fed anti-communist propaganda. But yes, people like Ayn Rand and Ronald Regan are pro-immigration, but you average nationalist isn’t. And nationalists make up most of the right, by population at least.
Yet capitalism always has had big goverment, it literally spent its early years protected by the crowns and landed aristocracy of feudalism. Where its bourgeois revolutions simply replaced the nobles with the capitalist as the dominant class.
The idea of capitalism being linked to small goverment only exist in the heads of libertarians. The capitalist giants of the 19th century even in the USA didn't care about the goverment reach as they understood their class dictated what the goverment did.
Free-market right-wingers and nationalist right-wingers are as different from each other as either is from leftists. They have problems with each other because they are fundamentally different ideologies.
Even to call both 'right-wing' is misleading.
They are against immigration not from an economic perspective, but from a nativist/jingoist standpoint.
If you value "muh heritage" and "muh ethnostate", as nazis/fascists/reactionaries do, it makes sense to oppose immigration. What it makes zero sense is calling yourself a capitalist (specially of the "anarcho" capitalist kind) and supporting the very same restrictive immigration policies.
Either way, immigration is a class issue. Immigrants are not the problem, neither are open borders. The problem has always been the exploitative nature of capitalism. Capitalism forces people to abandon their home countries, because it has been destabilized by the bourgeoisie.
Under socialism, immigration wouldn't even be a problem, since immigration would most likely cease, because workers would be in control of the economy, regardless of geographical location.
Either, far more jobs have been lost due to automation than because of immigrants, so yet again… the problem is capitalism.
Even most libertarians are A-Ok with a jingoist like Trump, so no… they get along pretty damn good.
As a matter of fact, libertarians/ancaps are closely related to the alt right and paleoconservatism. Most libertarians and ancaps are closet fascists, outside of a very few handful ones. Even Murray Rothbard, arguably the godfather of the modern libertarian movement made lip service to neonazis.
Trump is not fascist. Franco was a fascist, but he went free market libertard as soon as Hitler put a bullet in his brain. Franco is a much better example of fascists and libertards being interchangable.
People who support Trump are not libertarians even if they call themselves libertarians.
There's a huge difference between free market liberals and the alt-right.
Here I was, thinking Zig Forums was the place people from Zig Forums went to get away from the echo-chamber of rhetoric. Stupid fucking me.
I don't think I ever mentioned him being a fascist. I said he is a nativist/jingoist; it's just that fascists supported him in the name of identitarianism.
Ancaps and libertarians are, however, actual fascists LARPing as anti-authoritarians.
Most libertarians don't even believe the actual core values of liberty and free market capitalism, yet they still politically allign with libertarianism and/or are diehard cult followers of either Murray Rothbard or Ludwig Von Misses. They also happen to be the vast majority of libertarians, given how many of them piggybacked from Ron Paul to Trump.
Do libertarians truly believe in laissez faire? I've heard quite a lot of immigration restrictions from libertarians, support for an ethno-state and separatism, and that's not even getting into the final solution.
As far as I know, the only ones that actually support free market capitalism, as a big tent approach at least, along with open borders, are neoliberals.
A lot of American "libertarians" of the ancap variety are really in favor of pre-capitalist social and economic arrangements. Which is why you'll get some (on its face odd) arrangements like "ancap monarchist" although that's basically what they're going for. They're reactionaries, mainly.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why they call themselves capitalists; when they're not… really.
Like I said, those are not libertarians. Those are free market fundamentalists, Hoppeans, deluded alt-righties, alt-right infiltrators, etc… but not libertarian. They are not even liberals, much less libertarians. A true libertarian would never support using authoritarianism to create a 'libertarian' paradise. All true libertarians dropped Trump the moment he came out in favor of NBA domestic surveillance and hinted that Snowden should be executed.
Left-wingers should not do what the alt-right loves to do and lump all non-lefties together as some supposed monolithic block. There are huge real differences between liberals, libertarians, evangelicals, Trumpies, Nazis, and so on.
The category of right-wingers to which you refer are nationalists. It has nothing to do with capitalism, you are just building a strawman for yourself. The issue is with foreigners taking up space and resources that belong to the people of the nation itself. Illegal immigration is a particularly egregious affront because it does not even carry the pretense of being calculated for the nation's benefit.
why did you just repeat the word capitalist 5 times in a row? smh
FWIW libertarians tend to be very open borders. Most libertarians support open borders more than Democrats in the US.
You're a pro-capitalist reactionary or you're not. It's not that hard
The nazis are the only guys on that list who are not liberals, and they are irrelevant.
Because they're a highly expensive problem that also undercuts the bargaining power of a country's workers, while often times not only relying on welfare programs, but also sends any excess money to their home country, which weakens their "host" country's economy.
First, countries like the United States legally allow somewhere between 1-2 million people each year. Legally. Secondly, you're too brainwashed to realize that there's a difference between "being allowed to own your own business" and "ANYTHING TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYTHING IS FAIR GAME!"
Because they're illegal. The government enforces laws. Companies that break the law by hiring illegals are also punished for it. This is literally a "socialism is when the government does stuff"-tier argument.
It's not arbitrary at all. Different countries have different sets of everything, whether it be taxes, politicians, laws, etc. It would be skull-fuckingly common sense to, say, want to know of some serial murderer or drug runner is coming into your country.
That's like saying "Most drunk drivers don't go on to rape people, so what's the problem?" We already covered why illegal immigration is a problem in-itself.
Not systemically there isn't, as should be screamingly obvious right now as the large corporations devour the petit-bourgeoisie.
How do you imagine that government interferes in anything private if not by enforcing laws? Definitively, law enforcement is government interference.
Except when they're not, which is pretty damned often.
It is completely and utterly arbitrary. They are declared by fiat and are only reified by real military force.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with a line on a map being real or not.
Corruption at the government level isn't a product of capitalism. Socialist and "communist" have the exact same problem, but tenfold. But I agree with you, people getting away with breaking the law, such as ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION are always a problem.
It absolutely is, although capitalism does not possess that trait exclusively. Besides, what does corruption even have to do with what we were talking about?
No, your reading comprehension sucks. The enforcement of laws is government interference, thus enforcing anti-immigration laws is an example of government interfering with private enterprise.
Mexico, Canada, Russia, etc., like all nations, are just imaginary constructs. They are not the physical geography over which their states are said to have jurisdiction. Saying that the territory from here to there to over there is the jurisdiction of a particular state does not, of itself, affect a physical difference between the territory within those arbitrary dimensions and the territory beyond it. There is no physical United States of America. It is entirely a fiction that changes as relations between different states (themselves legal fictions) change. That is arbitrary.
No they don't. The "people" do not run the state. Laws are not the will of the people. Laws are the dictates of a state which is controlled in all meaningful ways by a ruling class against the material interests of the lower class.
Only in so far as they are different individuals.
There is no collective consciousness. Even the values of those who claim the same national identity are wildly different. Try asking a bunch of Americans to write down what they think being "American" means, and you will get a different answer from every person.
And yet so similar in function.
For a state to have resources it would have to nationalize them.
Hell-fucking-no they're not! There is no such thing as a distinctly Canadian economy or a distinctly Peruvian economy or a distinctly Indian economy, not anymore. Capitalism is fully global. Capital moves unimpeded across national borders. Thus distinctions between so-called national economies are nothing more than academic.
That is true in that individual states only favor the interests of that particular segment of the ruling class which has exerted control over it.
They are arbitrary definitively. They are created and exist only in people's imaginations. They are not physical, empirical.
Then it's not a product of capitalism. If you want to be accurate, you could say it's a product of material conditions, to use leftist phrasing.
Yes. Governments with a capitalist economy do this all the time in much more direct manners than illegal immigration. For example, you're not allowed to make your soft drinks out of rat poison, even if it's you're company, the same way you're not allowed to make dead bodies because "it's your gun". I'm not sure why you think that's "socialism".
Is this really how the rest of your post is going to go? "I can't poke it with my finger, therefore it doesn't exist!" This is middle school level philosophy shit. To give you a start though, look up the definitions of the words you seem to be using interchangably, such as "arbitrary", "imaginary", and "fiction".
Sigh. I give up. We went from a high-school level of ignorance, to a middle school one, and this is literally fucking elementary. I'm going to peace out now, because if I make it to the end of your post, it's probably nothing but "goo"ing and "gaa"ing.
Bad logic. The fact that corruption is not exclusively caused by capitalism does not mean that capitalism does not cause corruption. An effect can have more than one cause.
What the fuck are you even on about?
Yes, it is spectacularly elementary. If it is not physical then it is not real. If it only exists in a person's mind then it is imaginary.
Yeah, you have clearly reached the limits of your ability to think critically.