Comments: Immigration w/o Assimilation

Were we in Europe, I'd perhaps say "Hear, Hear!" (or "Ja,Ja" or something).

Your nation-state argument is a core belief of mine. The type of republican, minarchist sovereignty I seek requires Westphalian boundaries and borders.

But my border is to delineate where my government will protect my rights -- not some cage to keep me in and the other guys out. I'll borrow a Boulder word and suggest that it is not sustainable to set up the US as a gated community.

The problem with Europe is that they have lost confidence in the Enlightenment. The Syrian crisis has exacerbated this, but we've discussed it as long as we've had a blog. Thankfully, New York is not Rotterdam. Yet.

Even our extraordinarily pusillanimous feminist community would not react to the New Year's Eve attacks with "they had it coming." And if they had tried it in Red states, they'd have got their asses shot.

With all due respect, the path to keep our Enlightenment values is not to keep certain race/religion/country-of-origins out. We must rather keep the (Lockean) faith in. Europe lost it years ago.

Posted by jk at January 13, 2016 10:14 AM

Proof: [Mercedes's] AMG Sport was originally meant to bridge the gap between the regular cars and the AMGs. Now the AMG Sport models will simply become Mercedes-AMGs


Posted by jk at January 13, 2016 4:05 PM

Can anyone explain how the loss of Enlightenment values led to the formation of no-go zones for European police agencies?

One might say that would never happen in the USA. Look what happens when, for example, people exercising their religious traditions take multiple wives. This precedent must surely mean that conspiring mass murders and physical assaults could never be protected by the thin veil of "religious liberty." Or could it?

Or, one might say there should be places that police are prohibited from going. But this breaks down when the clandestine activities cause harm to others, or make preparations to cause harm. That is all I require anyone "assimilate" to: That every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even the infidels.

Posted by johngalt at January 13, 2016 4:16 PM

And yet...

Posted by Jk at January 13, 2016 9:23 PM

I'd argue that an excess of "Enlightenment Values" [aka, multiculturism etc.] and a lack of Lockean common sense [property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily."] is what's causing Europe's problem. JK can jump in, and perhaps he considers the Westphalian sovereignty concept as a centerpiece of the Enlightenment?

Throw in a lack of duty to one's country (and, by extension its citizenry) and an overzealous approach to world citizenship or more generally the "I want to be a UN hot shot in my next guise." If true, this does indeed suggest that Merkel unt allies have lost the concept of the social contract and have ceased ruling in the interests of the electorate.

Certainly the disdain of the political elites as widely documented and blogged upon is showing through here, Enlightened or not, and is thoroughly saturating our shores (well, from Manhattan to the Beltway and on the Left Coast as well). Who was it that said

no matter how much you hold DC in contempt, it's nothing to how much contempt they hold over you!

Posted by nanobrewer at January 14, 2016 12:30 AM

When you say "social contract" nb, I think "communitarian" which is awfully close in many respects to "collectivism." I currently view right-communitarian to be the domain of the RINO or "big-government conservative."

To me, "Enlightenment values" means the classical liberalism that elevated individual rights to the top of the social pyramid, directly above "duty to one's country" and miles above "the interests of the electorate."

That last bit, "interests of the electorate" - can it be interpreted differently than "majority rule?"

Posted by johngalt at January 14, 2016 2:14 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?