Palantir helps authorities track illegal immigrants
engadget.com
engadget.com
Hell, even some anarcho-capitalists (like the late Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe) are against open borders.
Musk can also be seen as a libertarian but he does advocate for social programmes like UBI which have to be provided through taxation.
Most libertarians I know are not universally against taxation, they are against double taxation and would prefer to tax corporation and consumption at higher rates rather than individual labor.
Libertarianism is primarily about the role of the government within the life of an individual and about maximizing the agency an individual holds over their own life; It doesn't mean that an ideal libertarian society would have no taxes; If anything most libertarians would rather pay higher local taxes to offset lower national taxation because they have more agency in determining on what and how their money is being spent on.
Libertarians don't want anarchy, they are fully aware that roads, schools, police, firefighters, EMT's the military and for most of them even hospitals and much more have to be publically funded, and the only way to do it is through taxation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_imm...
> The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a report in February 2016, stating that 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are paying annually an estimated amount of $11.64 billion in state and local taxes, "on average an estimated 8 percent of their incomes."[25]
[1] - http://www.wsj.com/articles/number-of-illegal-immigrants-in-...
That doesn't mean "yup, close the border", but we should still be careful about distinguishing the issues: yes, immigration may be below the optimal level, but it doesn't follow that illegal immigration is unproblematic in this respect.
Because the laws are unjust. There is clearly an immigration problem in the United States and I personally don't believe tracking and deporting he people already here will ever contribute to a successful solution.
> If your illegal, and most likely your not going to pay your fair share for the entitlements and services you and others use then I have zero respect for you.
Many illegal immigrants still pay taxes and will never receive direct benifits for their contribution [0]
Illegal immigrants also work jobs that you would never think of working. Remember when they deported a bunch of immigrants in the south and food was rotting in the fields because no one was there to pick it a few years ago?
So the solution is just don't obey them? Also, I don't think the laws are unjust. The laws are there to make sure fiscally the United States has the resources and security to protect its citizens.
See how well open borders has worked for Germany. These policies have further strengthened extreme right parties in Germany which potentially will be much worse (see Germany brexit or equivalent of Trump in Germany) which is very possible.
Then change the laws, but in order to do that you need to get your own people elected.
It's funny how ultimately the camps that allegedly is for a strong federal government would be better off with a weak "confederate style" federation. If the federal government wouldn't be in charge of immigration policies then whatever state you live in could set whatever immigration laws you want.
It's also curious how only in US immigration laws are seen as as immoral. Try to move to Canada and see how hard it is to survive there illegally. Yet Canada is somehow seen as the heaven of progressiveness somehow ...
Here is the thing, the more illegal immigrants you accept and defend, the harder it is for the people who actually want to respect US laws and go through the official process. That's the only thing that is immoral here. But you don't care about these people.
This trend is true, but this is the kind of statistical manipulation that happens when emotions come into play about these kinds of sensitive issues. Comparing trends in overall crime with the growth of a minority population is misleading, as it's a minor contributor to total crime, even if it is disproportionate, especially in violent crimes. Some arguments even switch briefly to talking about legal immigrants, which is a completely different population. Also, this is an international issue.
There's plenty of interesting information in the USA. I like this article because it shows some of the errors on both sides.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/12/04/problems-w...
Yes. For the most part, I oppose the idea of nation-states and most of what people call "government" altogether. I support free movement of people, ideas, consumer goods, etc. As far as I'm concerned, as long as no use of coercive force / aggression is involved, it's all good.
How about a self-surveillance platform to measure your footprint?
The idea is basically an automated network-level CTF. Get as much data out as possible, then report back with the results. You could do this with a group of friends (feed all your friends data into your analysis box), to yourself (and all your devices baring OS restrictions), or with a larger group of security-minded individuals.
For extra fun, if you're capturing the traffic on your own machines, you could have a tool that extracts network encryption keys from memory, which should work similarly for programs using the same encryption stack, and you then feed that into the network analysis tool.
You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.
PANDA looks like an interesting tool to automate the retrieval of encryption keys; it can replay full process executions using a modified version of QEMU, and find procedures that convert high entropy data (i.e. encrypted or compressed data) to lower entropy data.
Coincidentally, if you get this up and running you can also automate the breaking of (encryption-based) DRM; that's just a side effect of gaining fuller control over your general-purpose computer. Oops.
Well, it probably wasn't as well thought out as you might have hoped, but there's no question there's at least thin connection between my username and most of my positions on things.
The comment I made above was kind of just spur of the moment, off the cuff, to be honest. I have a fundamental and visceral disdain for government, and especially anything that hints at that Big Brother / Orwell-esque world of Nineteen Eighty Four. And it especially pains me to see technologists/hackers willfully taking part in supporting government oppression of free people. So of course I'm going to make an offhanded comment about how we should do the exact opposite.
And I feel a little snarky now, because people are always referring to Peter Thiel as a "libertarian" and this strikes me as extremely un-libertarian. And as a libertarian myself, I don't want Thiel misleading a lot of people about how libertarian ideals.
You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.
Sounds something like an inverse IDS. I know there are some tools out there now for monitoring outgoing traffic, but not sure if there's anything with that specific spin on it. You might be onto something there.