Border Follies

Bryan Caplan’s latest on the open borders question illuminates an imaginary world. Perhaps the strangest thing about this fantasy earth is that it corresponds almost perfectly with an achieved libertarian utopia, marred only by pesky borders that impede the frictionless completion of labor contracts.

In Caplan World there are two significant levels of social organization: private owners — fully secure in their property rights — and the human race as a whole, struggling to sort itself into productive relationships of voluntary cooperation. In his figurative simplification, there are households, and there is the planet. Nothing done to de-fragment the planet could negatively affect households to any significant extent. In fact, they could only benefit from open-access to several billion potential tenants. On Caplan World, open-borders is a no-brainer.

On Sol-3, unfortunately, things are not nearly so simple. The most obvious reason is that nobody on this planet enjoys secure property rights. Freely-contracting Caplan World ‘tenants’ are — in reality — also voters, and what they vote upon, most substantially, is other people’s property rights. In this, real world, geographical fragmentation means that a whole bunch of (once) non-random other people do not have any voice in regards to your business. In an age of rampant democracy, the only way to maintain this situation is to keep them on the other side of a border, at least formally (polite visitors don’t get to decide whether your house should be expropriated). Eliminate the borders, and the only property rights remaining are those that the global population, as a whole, are willing to grant. Does it really need to be spelt out that this is not the recipe for a libertarian society?

Yes, it’s tediously repetitive to accuse Caplan and company of being suicidal lunatics, but they keeps printing out the collective suicide notes. These aren’t stupid people. They have to know their plans won’t result in the importation of voiceless exit-units, or free-contractors, but rather of a new people, already pre-determined by democratic assumptions to be particles of political sovereignty — i.e. masters. You don’t get to decide (commercially) whether they can stay in your house. They get to decide (politically) whether you can keep your house. Since they are also disproportionately saturated with the bio-cultural heritage of places that have never shown any taste or competence for the creation or mere preservation of freedom-tolerant institutions, the subsequent democratic decisions — it can reliably be predicted — will be horrendous. If this were not so, why would the Left-half of the political spectrum be openly salivating about the electoral catastrophe in process? (Nobody thinks they’re importing reinforcements for the Tea Party.)

It’s probably far too late for any of this to matter. At this point, Caplan is just rubbing salty madness into the wounds.

September 3, 2013admin 48 Comments »
FILED UNDER :World

TAGGED WITH : ,

48 Responses to this entry

  • Doug Says:

    I disagree with Caplan’s position, obviously. But you’re attacking a straw man here. Caplan has addressed the voter and electoral shift issue at least several times. He has made an at least somewhat plausible case that immigrants are not substantially different in political opinions than natives. You should be counter-pointing his specific arguments on this topic.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’ve seen these discussions, but we have a very different understanding of what “a plausible case” looks like. (And also what a “straw man” is.)

    [Reply]

    Doug Reply:

    Caplan’s case is pretty plausible because the PRI isn’t winning elections in America. El Paso looks a lot more like Appleton than it does Juarez. It’s not so simple as saying that a Mexican electorate will always vote for a government that looks like Mexico. Path dependencies matter. Neoreactionaries shouldn’t need to be told that the electorate holds far less power in a democracy than the existing non-democratic institutions that manufacture opinion. The Cathedral in the US is a lot different than the vote machines in Mexico, even if the people end up the same.

    Italy already offers us a glimpse of what open borders would realistically look like. You have the essentially third-world, corrupt South and the highly productive, law-abiding North. All with no national border separating the two and a co-mingled national electorate. Milan has not turned into Naples. Although I suspect that Italian unification has depressed Northern GDP levels from Swiss to sub-French levels.

    Caplan’s point is that existing first world nations, even stuffed to the brim with third world voters, would be unlikely to fall below middle income development levels. Dropping a billion people to Portuguese development levels, while raising three billion from third world levels to that point, is still a huge net utilitarian win. Caplan’s critics in the reaction-sphere need to think harder about what’s wrong with this argument, rather than pretending like he’s making an argument which he isn’t.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Utilitarians might have a problem arguing with that. Nobody else should.

    Thales Reply:

    Actual unicorns outnumber actual utilitarians.

    Toddy Cat Reply:

    “Caplan’s point is that existing first world nations, even stuffed to the brim with third world voters, would be unlikely to fall below middle income development levels. Dropping a billion people to Portuguese development levels, while raising three billion from third world levels to that point, is still a huge net utilitarian win”

    Anyone who believes that this is what would happen if three billion third-world immigrants were imported into the West most certainly qualifies for the title “suicidal lunatic”. Also, those people whose living standards would be dropping to (supposedly) Portuguese levels – do they get no say in the matter? And while the PRI isn’t winning elections in America yet, the Democratic Party is looking more like the PRI every day, a fact that is not unrelated to Mexican immigratiom. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather live in Mexico than Africa or Arabia, but I’d rather live in the United States. But I guess that’s not a choice that I get to make.

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 6:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    What a bizarre and weak argument against open borders. You refer to Caplan and company as “suicidal lunatics” as if they identified with the democratic Cathedral-state which open borders would lead to the death of. OF COURSE mass immigration will lead to political destabilization and ethnic polarization – that’s the point.

    This is something about the neoreactionaries I’m familiar with that’s bugged me for quite awhile now. Do you actually imagine that a Moldbuggian reset will ever be possible in a place that even remotely resembles modern-day America? The only way this has even a prayer of happening is in the event that a secessionist movement takes root, and I can think of no better way to stoke the fires for one than by bringing in a bunch of brown people to overtly oppress whites via the ballot box until they get fed up and snap. If, as we all claim, progressivism is an inevitably fatal disease for a country to contract, then why bother continuing to treat it? Let nature (or Nature’s God, Gnon?) take its course while we attempt to build something new and stable in whatever land we can escape to – White Flight writ large ftw. The Confederacy may have fallen, but I see no reason why another attempted escape could not succeed.

    Immigration restrictions are an excellent tool for limp-dicked conservatives to try and maintain the hyper-feminized sorry excuse for a country that America has become, but I see no reason why neoreactionaries should be concerned about the welfare of the Cathedral.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    OK, that’s a genuinely interesting argument. You’re being generous to Caplan though — he’s made clear elsewhere that he’s happy to countenance local shifts towards social democracy if the average global level of economic freedom is not decreased.
    We need far more borders (dynamic geography) rather than less (global entropy). Even in your model, it’s the power of exit that pushes ruined political structures over the cliff.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Lots of times more ruin is just more ruin. Maybe marxists believed in heightening the contradictions, but it turned out well every time it was tried.

    Is there any actual example of a polity suddenly receiving three to four times its number of inhabitants in immigrants and anything improved coming out the other side?

    Caplan is a non-gnontheist. Simple rules of thumb like ‘people who defy reality probably aren’t promoting plans with good outcomes in real life’ are useful heuristics.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 7:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    I don’t think saying that Caplan fails to identify with the United States requires any generosity at all; in fact, the link you provided seems to bolster that claim quite a bit. If you meant instead to say that I was being generous by attributing to him the argument for open borders that I presented, then I apologize for the misunderstanding, as it certainly was not my intention to do so.

    Note the assumption you’re making when you refer to “local shifts,” though – that the entirety of America is “local.” But why must that be? What if an influx of socialist parasites produced rapid decay only in those states that took in most of them, leaving behind too many Detroits for even the oblivious to ignore? Frankly, watching California self-destruct hasn’t hurt me one bit, because I don’t live there.

    I agree that we need more borders rather than less, but this is nowhere near the same thing as saying that we need to strengthen the ones we have. I am an unapologetic advocate for open borders, because no sane system would give a shit what I “advocate for,” and any society stupid enough to destroy itself deserves to die.

    Exit can indeed be a powerful force. It appears to have atrophied of late, but I hope to see its resurgence in the decades to come.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m not assuming that the whole of America is ‘local’ — only that there are no effective sub-localities in America (e.g. free states) because unimpeded migration + portable positive rights mean that there is nothing to stop a tide of ‘Californians’ heading anywhere in the country they want and ‘ruin voting’ the place into chaos. Secessionary fragmentation, sufficient to end geographically transferrable democratic citizenship, is a minimum condition for any of the things you want to see.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Look at Colorado’s recent shift leftward. A key component is California ruin voters fleeing their own state but using the ballot box to signal that they are still good people who favor the standard leftist nostrums.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    An irresistible diagnosis.

    (That ‘ruin voting’ thing you cooked up together with Gnon is displaying serious fire-power, btw.)

    Max Reply:

    I think you’re being uncharacteristically short-sighted and unimaginative. Granted, on a long enough timeline unimpeded migration + democracy = ruin, but you seem to be assuming that the socialist shift in places overrun by leftist locusts will not produce a violent reaction from red-staters with a survival instinct. If you’re right, then we’re all doomed anyway and so there’s little point in doing more than enjoying the decline; if you’re wrong, however, then mass immigration leading to sharp and sudden societal decay may be just the sort of system shock required to jolt people from their slumber.

    Secessionary fragmentation sufficient to end geographically transferable democratic citizenship seems to me to be a prerequisite condition for just about everything neoreactionaries want to see. It’s a choke point. As such, I claim that creating or encouraging conditions that are expected to increase the likelihood of secessionary fragmentation is not just a good idea – it is the ONLY good idea.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    What do you think we’re disagreeing about at this point? Whether mass immigration could provide a social trauma sufficient to shock the system out of its meta-stable decay mode? I’m not closed to the idea (and anything more enthusiastic than that would be slipping into cultism.)

    “Secessionary fragmentation sufficient to end geographically transferable democratic citizenship seems to me to be a prerequisite condition for just about everything neoreactionaries want to see.” — you can’t possibly believe this more than I do.

    Kgaard Reply:

    I’ve been thinking about this concept for a few days and have decided you have a point. Trying to spur action on the right via shock methods — pushing the limits of lefty commentary on blogs and Slate-type websites — does make strategic sense. That said, it seems like it would be tough to pull this off in reality because there is still so much residual residual guilt surrounding slavery, the Holocaust and displacement of Mexicans and American Indians. Check out the comments on this Huffpost article about the opening of the Mosque in Murfreesboro TN. There are so many cross-currents in the comments — and there are 969 comments — that I don’t see how you could hope to make a dent with any sort of covert strategy. The themes are just too crazy, diverse and disjointed on both sides (and the average IQ of the commenters seems to barely scrape 100). If anything, this problem just lends credence to the notion that America is a lost cause because it’s not a true nation-state and most Americans don’t view themselves as BEING part of a nation-state. So there is simply no defense against the progressive virus. There aren’t enough white blood cells on hand to fight it. Kind of like leukemia or something.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/after-long-fight-opening-day_n_1768915.html

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 7:54 am Reply | Quote
  • Little Hans Says:

    In Cathedral-world expropriation isn’t really a problem though? Quite the opposite, the owners of property (the Boomer Generation) try and maintain a political system that’s ultimately in the service of the property market. The commercial and the political both work together to ruthlessly increase property prices, be it by immigration, rampant NIMBYism etc.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s plenty of expropriation. In approximate order of significance: taxes, implicit taxes (public debt), regulatory inhibition (of productive capital), financial repression, inflation …

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    You missed crime. Yes it’s not at the levels of the duskier, however…MS-13 now controls long swathes of Long Island.

    Now it’s a workable problem, but not thru democracy.

    @ academics – the people who can’t hold power or vote aren’t THE PEOPLE. It’s you.
    Pretty much the Hairer parts of the Hare scale are out, but pyschopathic detachement, using people, and undertaking any promise with no intention of keeping it….BINGO.

    [not personal admin. you seem to be exception].

    It’s not the people. It’s the elites, and they’re all corrupted at the same place: The Academy.

    As to Caplans suicide notes: our elites have been trying to do this since the 60s.

    Maybe they’ll get the Mexicans to do it.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “You missed crime.” — Good catch.

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 11:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    Is there any actual example of a democratic and Cathedral-led polity suddenly overthrowing its shackles and installing a sane and stable reactionary state? When attempting to do something that’s never been done before, one should expect to see things that have never been seen before.

    I agree that such a rule of thumb is generally useful, but there are a few obvious exceptions. Plenty of people are competent in one area but not another or arrive at the right answer for the wrong reason(s). See: Christian traditionalist race realists who deny the reality of human evolution. These people defy reality in a shockingly dumb way, and yet their policy proposals often overlap with ours. It is only where they differ that calling into question their ability to reason becomes necessary; if a stronger argument exists, address it and ignore the weaker.

    Here, I’ve presented what I believe to be a prima facie case for supporting open borders. It’s no good to simply say that because Caplan denies reality, anyone who agrees with him must be wrong.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… a prima facie case for supporting open borders.” — This strikes me as one step too far (at least), unless taken entirely surreptitiously. Supporting political enemies, even based on a cynical strategy of ‘the worse the better’, is always a mistake, because the propaganda advantage it lends them cannot be later retracted once the moment for betrayal arrives. Stubborn principles beat ideo-twerking. If secession is the real goal, argue for secession, with the immigration catastrophe theory tacked on as a subordinate footnote. It’s hardly as if the open borders lobby needs our help.

    You don’t agree with Caplan, even on this, anymore than Marx agreed with laissez-faire capitalism. (What you ‘agree’ with is “Accelerate the degeneration” as Megan’s Maoist father declared on Madmen — and I actually think that, secretly, most neoreactionaries are with you on that.)

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Is there any example of White Flight leading to armed exit? Even close? It’s been underway for 50 years.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 1:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    Not just whether it could – that is, whether the probability is nonzero – but whether it is likely enough for mass immigration to be considered a desirable policy worth promoting (explicitly for this reason).

    I admire your aversion in the first paragraph to overly-enthusiastic endorsements of solutions to a complex social problem like immigration, but why does it not transfer to the second? I agree that secessionary fragmentation is probably necessary for positive political reform and hence desirable, but I’m by no means certain of it. Playing devil’s advocate in favor of a worldwide takeover by the Cathedral followed by the institution of a one-world government isn’t terribly hard. There are many things I hold valuable that’d no doubt be destroyed by such a crusade, but perhaps that is simply the path our species is destined to take. Rebelling against reality isn’t in my playbook; understanding the rules in order to play the game better is. Progressivism’s relentless historical march might reasonably be viewed as a sign of temporary evolutionary fitness, and its suicidal nature would perfectly explain Fermi’s Paradox, or the Great Silence. Perhaps all intelligent life-forms are doomed to destroy themselves. If so, then stoicism – not agitation – is called for.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Chaos can be stimulative, but once you get to entropy there’s no backing out from it, or reversing it, so it’s hard for me to see global demographic equilibrium as a stage on the road to anywhere that we might want to go. It’s a chicken game (and they’re always fun). The process has to cut out into something quite different before it reaches the limit of its intrinsic tendency. Could that happen? Certainly. But it has to be worrying how enthusiastic our enemies will be at playing the same game, thinking — also with some reason — that they might quite possibly win it, definitively.

    This whole line of discussion is far too adrenalizing to be short-circuited into stoicism just yet.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 1:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    It feels like I AM arguing for secession with the immigration catastrophe theory tacked on – it simply doesn’t seem that way because the thread itself is devoted to questioning the wisdom of weakening immigration restrictions in the United States, and so I’ve started by answering THAT question before providing my reasoning. But in general, trollishly pushing policies like open borders and white replacement truly is the most effective means I’ve found for lighting fires under the asses of rank-and-file Republicans. Radicalizing Romney voters is fun – go to your local Republican Party precinct meeting some time and try it.

    I am not convinced that more immigration will “accelerate the degeneration” for the whole polity, because I have faith in the ability of higher-IQ individuals to escape and segregate themselves from excess vibrancy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 2:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    “Actual unicorns outnumber actual utilitarians.”

    Kindly elaborate? I think of myself as an actual utilitarian, would be curious to know if there’s a justification for the above quote more sophisticated than No True Scotsman.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 2:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Max Says:

    If you think global demographic equilibrium or anything even remotely resembling it will ever be achieved, then you have far more faith in the stability of progressivism than I do.

    I think analogies to the frog in the boiling pot are appropriate here – if current demographic trends are allowed to continue at approximately the same rate, it seems to me that the frog (us/US) is going to die, and only by hastening the heating can we hope to save it. I freely admit the dangers of this strategy along with the possibility that I’m just dead wrong, but no man can reasonably argue that I’m ignorant of or haven’t heavily considered the alternatives.

    If the enthusiasm of our enemies were backed up by a well-reasoned argument for why what I see as realistic and desirable was not likely or possible, then I’d agree that we had a problem, but I am not confident that it is – witness their shock at the 2010 tidal wave set off by the underwater earthquake known as Obamacare. These people have blind spots that they’ve allowed to develop due to their long history of #winning – vulnerabilities that can be exploited, but only if they’re understood.

    Stoicism – at least for brief respites – strikes me as especially desirable when confronted with an adrenalizing issue. How else can one maintain a clear head, free of bias? Our brains aren’t wired to think well when we’re all worked up. You’ve gotta cool down if you don’t want to make any dumb mistakes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 2:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Does this imaginary world have borders? 😀

    Perhaps a review of actual Central American History is in order…
    =========================================
    Dear Mr. Caplan et al,

    MEXICANS YOU SAY

    You may want to consider the actual History of Mexico before you replace us. It’s a History where the Meso-Americans literally EAT the Boss as soon as they sense weakness.

    That’s Swipples all day . Weak.

    The Mayas ate and wiped out each other, the Aztecs were eaten by the Toltecs who were eaten by the Mexica..and then the Spanish arrived. Who didn’t eat them, but they have kept their WHITE selves on top for 500 years – a record for Mexico – by being the most ruthless bastards there, ever.
    They may seem more pliable but understand – without us, you’re not only no longer in charge, you’re literally dinner.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Caplan doesn’t fully integrate cannibalism into his intuitive model.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    😀

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    That’s because he’s a homophobe (see what i did there?) who doesn’t acknowledge the alternate lifestyle of consuming human flesh. Cannibals just want the exact same civil liberties that carnivores and vegitarians already enjoy, and letting the Cannibals exercise their practice of eating their fellow man is not going to diminish anyone else’s lifestyle choices one iota.

    [Reply]

    Vxxc Reply:

    My DC lawyer friend and I had the same debate. The actual question was do Zombies have the same rights as the so called “living”? Including benefits of course.

    Thales Reply:

    Don’t you see the Metabolic Privilege inherent that kind of discussion? You’re oppressing the Undead-American!

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 3:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    The Mexican Authorities are however having to integrate cannibalism back into their model.

    I think they’re pretty motivated about this entire open borders thing…

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/world/americas/mexico-human-sacrifice

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 3:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Look don’t think I don’t have a sense of Humor. It would be fun to watch the Mexicans eat the Swipples. But I don’t think this is good policy. Also the only winners in system crash are the types that well are willing to crash it anyway. And usually had a hand in it. Who also have a strange sense of Humor. But people should be cautioned it’s not good policy. It’s all very droll to consider these as prospective game theories.** However it’s not so Droll in real life.

    This means that encouraging system crash so the Confederacy rises again is a bad idea. If you mean by Confederacy everyone – including dusky hued – has gray skin [oh yes] then yes the Confederacy Gray shall rise again.

    Otherwise it’s bad policy.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    … but (as you suggest) it’s hard not to smile at the thought of the cannibal tide washing up against the ramparts of GMU.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    My actual plan is to channelize them to Columbia campus.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 4:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    “Libertarianism is applied autism.”

    –Carter Van Carter

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 3rd, 2013 at 5:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Perry de Havilland over at Samizdata has also advocated hastening the collapse. “Tedd” argued the other side: “[T]he argument against collectivism and progressivism needs to be won before the collapse happens. Once the system collapses, people will assess blame according to the political paradigm they already subscribe to….”
    http://www.samizdata.net/2013/02/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-250/#comment-293812

    What is the right rate at which to introduce learning experiences to students before administering a test? If you give them the final exam on the first day of class, you may end up flunking a lot of them. I would suspect a teacher who does this of having hidden motives.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 4th, 2013 at 4:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    I don’t see how hastening collapse via rampant immigration helps anything:

    * The logical outcome is Elysium for 10% + semi-normality for 15% + twerking retardation for 75%.
    * That is DEPRESSING even if you are in the Elysium portion. It’s not a fun way to live.
    * We have ample historical examples of entire regions that have been decimated by importation of second-raters. Topping the list would be Greece and Southern Italy. And now of course France. Once those people come in, they’re never leaving.

    I have been in Tokyo for the last week. I cannot TELL you how nice it is to be in a country that has not “caught the disease of progressivism.” I believe it was Max above who used that formulation — and it feels absolutely spot-on. This place is NOT progressive. It is like America 40 or 50 years ago. It feels incredibly normal. I am an INTJ and normally walk around all day in a judgmental rage. But here … all my judgments are positive! There is no rage!

    If the entire reactionary worldview is really an INTJ quirk (which one could argue it is) then isn’t the easier path just for the INTJs just to GTFO while the getting is good? It seems to me the masses are not gonna be won over to any kind of change. And you can’t control even a SMALL piece of real estate in the U.S. without a fairly broad spectrum of political support. Or else they pull a Waco on you.

    Here’s another way to think about it: Women don’t care about civilizational decline. Kids don’t care. Extraverts don’t care. SPs don’t care (i.e. Sensing-Perceivers). Minorities don’t care. So what does that leave you with? Maybe 4% of the population who doesn’t like the new reality?

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 4th, 2013 at 9:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Another possibility is Finland. I was there last week and basically everyone there is Finnish (with 9% Swedes). Helsinki is beautiful. I saw like 2 muslims in 2 days. I know there are a few more but it hasn’t hit critical mass.

    Seems to me the big competitive disadvantage the US has is that it’s not consciously a nation-state, so there is no intellectual argument for keeping people out. The Russians can say, “We are RUSSIAN and this is RUSSIA. RUSSIANS FOR RUSSIA. And that has a certain sense to it. But Americans just can’t pull that off anymore — in part because the initial inhabitants were Mexican and Indian — and because most black people in the US pre-date most white people. So the US is at a unique disadvantage when it comes to stopping immigration.

    As Ed West pointed out in his book, it’s almost like the last 70 years have been a mass delusion brought on by the Holocaust. European peoples were so guilt-ridden over the Holocaust that they couldn’t see fit to protect the integrity of their own nation-states. That period is clearly drawing to a close. So the best places will be those that didn’t see a huge mess of immigration during the delusional period. Finland is one example. ALL of Eastern Europe is pretty much untouched by heavy immigration, so that’s another idea.

    But I don’t know … this is largely conceptual. I still haven’t been able to pull the trigger on permanently expat-ing from the US. Life is pretty easy there and the weather is nice. It’s just the spiritual reality of it that depresses me 24/7.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 4th, 2013 at 9:31 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Well apparently Swipple is racist now. I’ve arrived. LOL LOL LOL
    =================================

    Hi, VXXC.

    Thanks for your EconLog comment, quoted below. It has been withheld pending confirmation of your email address.
    In addition, your comment cannot be published for irrelevance.  There is no mention of “Mexicans” in the post or anywhere in the thread. So, your yelling, upper-case start of “Mexicans you say” is entirely irrelevant.  Plus, terms such as “swipple” are inappropriate and crude and will not be published. 

    Your future comments are precluded until we hear from you.  Please respond to this email if you would like your comment privileges restored. This is a routine verification.

    You can read more about EconLog policies here: 
    http://www.econlib.org/library/faqEconLog.html#commentpolicies

    We appreciate your interest in EconLog, and we look forward to hearing from you so that we may reinstate your comment privileges.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Plus, terms such as “swipple” are inappropriate and crude and will not be published.” — That’s seriously hyper-sensitive.

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    I got what I wanted.

    Swipple is now a RACE.

    GAME ON. Amen.

    Fuck the Puritan meme. Who has time for that?

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 4th, 2013 at 2:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Severen Says:

    “You’re oppressing the Undead-American!”

    Wight Privilege!

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    LOL! New cardboard sign slogan: “Wight Power!”

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 4th, 2013 at 5:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Severen Says:

    BTW, “Undead-Americans” was soooooo antilifist yesterday. Today, the proper antilifist term is “walkers”. I’d advise everyone to adopt this term. Failure to do so would be lifist. You don’t have to be going around throwing out the ugly zed slur to be a lifist, ya know.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 6th, 2013 at 1:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment