JimS:Regarding the prison population, how many of them are hard crimes, how many of them are crimes created by the legal process, such as driving without license because they are not legally allowed to have one?
On that I have no hard data. The stories I hear from the COs I know suggest a high degree of 'hard' crime.
JimS:As for DUI, I actually got stopped once, and the rooky cop tried to insinuate that I was driving drunk because my face was flushed after getting pulled over; I hardly drink any alcoholic beverage at all, much less getting drunk ever. Guess what his first question was? What was my immigration status. I was quite dumb-founded . . .
And way more than once a year cops pull over people who are so blotto they should not be operating an outhouse, much less a car. The point, once more, is not whether cops are perfect or a private alternative is desirable.
JimS:What you have described is symptoms of poverty.
That's an insult to every poor person who isn't too occupied getting drunk to pick up their own front lawn.
JimS:People have to be born with parents buying them chatels whenever they relocate?
No, but it would be helpful if they didn't steal, rob, party loudly until the wee hours of the morning on weekdays, harrass neighbor's kids, and generally let their property go to seed. Yes, there are the noble poor, hell bent on accumulating wealth and improving their position in life through all ethical means necessary. There are also people who are poor because they are slovenly, unproductive, criminal pieces of crap.
JimS:I do not drive benefit from the government when I use public roads.
Then don't use them. Yes, speaking hypothetically if everything were ideal and the entire world privatized the roads would be cheaper, better maintained, less congested, yada yada yada. In the world we actually live in you need to use them to get places and you do use them to your benefit. Once more, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this distinction doesn't go down with this crowd, there is a difference between what might have been in an ideal world of anarcho capitalism and the world we actually live in.
Edit: Also, could you please quote people so we know who you are responding to?
Brainpolice:Since we're doing personal histories here: I admitedly started out as more or less a left-liberal, evolved into a minarchist with cultural left tendencies, read a lot of Rothbard and free market economics material, ran into major cognitive dissonance (was wrestling between minarchism and anarchism in my head for a while) and finally concluded in favor of market anarchism. I further evolved as an anarchist to accept a pluralist type of anarchism without adjectives perspective and have adopted an agorist, non-voting, anti-pragmatist outlook on strategy. I've also developed a fairly Objectivist (albiet non-Randian) type of philosophy to justify my anarchism. In retrospect, as a minarchist I was an anarchist in denial the whole time. So here I am.
Since we're doing personal histories here: I admitedly started out as more or less a left-liberal, evolved into a minarchist with cultural left tendencies, read a lot of Rothbard and free market economics material, ran into major cognitive dissonance (was wrestling between minarchism and anarchism in my head for a while) and finally concluded in favor of market anarchism. I further evolved as an anarchist to accept a pluralist type of anarchism without adjectives perspective and have adopted an agorist, non-voting, anti-pragmatist outlook on strategy. I've also developed a fairly Objectivist (albiet non-Randian) type of philosophy to justify my anarchism. In retrospect, as a minarchist I was an anarchist in denial the whole time. So here I am.
Hah. I started off as a centre-right monarchist, which is what led me to buy Hoppe's DTGTF in the first place (when I was around 18.) His work turned me into a minarchist, and upon reading Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness I gained the necessary ethical knowledge to become a Hoppean market anarchist (even though I was always an individualist, I still thought ethics had to be of the collectivist sort), with Objectivist leanings. I've never really been a leftie of any sort.
xahrx: JimS:Regarding the prison population, how many of them are hard crimes, how many of them are crimes created by the legal process, such as driving without license because they are not legally allowed to have one? On that I have no hard data. The stories I hear from the COs I know suggest a high degree of 'hard' crime. JimS:As for DUI, I actually got stopped once, and the rooky cop tried to insinuate that I was driving drunk because my face was flushed after getting pulled over; I hardly drink any alcoholic beverage at all, much less getting drunk ever. Guess what his first question was? What was my immigration status. I was quite dumb-founded . . . And way more than once a year cops pull over people who are so blotto they should not be operating an outhouse, much less a car. The point, once more, is not whether cops are perfect or a private alternative is desirable. JimS:What you have described is symptoms of poverty. That's an insult to every poor person who isn't too occupied getting drunk to pick up their own front lawn. JimS:People have to be born with parents buying them chatels whenever they relocate? No, but it would be helpful if they didn't steal, rob, party loudly until the wee hours of the morning on weekdays, harrass neighbor's kids, and generally let their property go to seed. Yes, there are the noble poor, hell bent on accumulating wealth and improving their position in life through all ethical means necessary. There are also people who are poor because they are slovenly, unproductive, criminal pieces of crap.
Looks to me that what you're experiencing is a clash of cultures. You're gettting overwhelmed by a foreign culture being imposed on you. Then you mix that with gov't aid, and an "illegal status" that makes the problem worse. Trying to control it is going to be like trying to control drugs..good luck. Anyway, why is it that so many Americans (Canadians too) are moving to Mexico, at least part of the year, and seem to get along just fine with the Mexicians? My brother is down there now completing his house, I don't hear any complaints about them "partying, harrassing neigbour kids, or letting their property go to seed." Moreover, the Mexicans don't seem to be making a stink about it and demanding all the foreigners leave.
Maybe the a problem with Mexicans in the U.S. is because they're illegal and not welcome? We know that if the gov't legalized drugs, the dealers and gang violence surrounding the drug trade would deminish, maybe the same applies with the illegality of immigrants?
Here's a plan if its a problem of assimilation. Open immigration in areas overwhelmed by illegal Mexican immigrants to Canadian immigrants. Hey, we speak English, have pretty much the same culture, and are even more uptight then Americans (in some ways). British would be even better, they're total tight-asses. We'd balance them out.
I'm only half kidding here. If one group is becoming dominant, maybe immigration needs to be a bit more balanced. I'm trying to think of a practical way to deal with this issue that is at least not entirely anti-libertarian and authoritarian.
"Even if you take a pure market view then there is some discoverable optimal level of immigration that would exist in a totally privatized society."
And that "optimal level" is not a fixed level. It changes whenever someone has a lawn to be mowed and not have any US national takers to do the job, and whenever someone has a house to rent and not having a US national willing to take the price. The "optimal level" is just like any optimal price level in a free market, to be discovered and re-discovered every minute of the day, not some bureacratic quota.
"With the rampant government violation of property rights, nationalization of land, and the offerring of incentives to illegals in the form of government services, by definition we're going to be dealing with way more immigration than we otherwise would be in an ideal world."
Not true at all. For the first time in a long time, in the past year, more US nationals emigrated to Canada than Canadians emigrated to the US. I went to an American (US national) enclave in Mexico on a business trip early this year, the real estate price there is already rapidly approaching US prices (as in coastal US prices, much higher than the middle parts of the US), all bid up by US nationals who are considering retirement there. Let's face it, red tapes and taxes are not attractive to either native borns or would be immigrants.
"But then that's the difference between theory and practice. "
Of course. I'm not sure why I should feel guilty about using public roads: if I could put the money levied from me as gasoline tax instead towards private turn-pike companies, I'd probably be driving on much better roads . . . I'm simply being coerced to use public roads. The theory of anti-immigration is that if we crack down hard enough on immigration, it will stop, and the crackdown doesn't cost us much . . . it's as silly a theory as one propose that if we set speed limit on highways to 40mph, nobody would be driving quicker than that; if we set up roadblocks every few blocks to check driver's license, we'd have a much better economy because we woudn't have unlicensed drivers. It's patent nonsense because the draconian measures will have enormous economic cost, both in terms of new bureacrats that would have to be hired to do the enforcement and lost opportunity costs as people are stuck in non-moving traffic or slow moving traffic. In the case of immigration, the anti-immigration theory won't work at all. People won't stop coming (and going) just because it's illegal. In practice, the anti-immigration policy would only lead to:
(1) higher taxes to pay enforcement, both for hiring new bureacrats and for government contracts to set up high-tech and nearly useless barriers;
(2) impairment of private capital: (a) the barriers will have eminent domain issues; (b) nominal wages will go up, imparing savings; btw, real wages will not go up, just like minimum wage laws banning a different class of workers (those with productivity below a certain threshold); (c) business owners and real estate owners will have less counter parties in their trade
(3) severe civil liberty risk to US nationals: all the tools that can be dreamed up to control population flow can be easily adapted to use against the next population group that gets declared "illegal." Historically, walls always served the dual purpose of keeping the population inside in and keeping those outside out; usually more the former than the latter.
On top of these three practical downside, there is an even bigger one for those who are interested in advancing liberty within the current political framework:
(4) Anti-immigration cost elections. Apparently, there are enough legal immigrants who have experienced what a mess the law is in that regard, and enough friends and relatives of "those people," and enough business and individuals that realize at least one of the three facets enumerated above, that there is at least a silent majority who are against politicians who embrace it. Just look at Tancredo, despite the shrill voice of some of his ardent supporters, his campaign went nowhere. Republicans already lost the last congressional election because of anti-immigration sabre rattling.
"Yes, there are the noble poor, hell bent on accumulating wealth and improving their position in life through all ethical means necessary. There are also people who are poor because they are slovenly, unproductive, criminal pieces of crap."
Shouldn't the corrective measures (if such expensive procedures be undertaken, as we know coercion is expensive) be directed towards slovenliness, unproductivity and bona fide criminality, instead of whether somone is in posession of certain types of papers?
"That's an insult to every poor person who isn't too occupied getting drunk to pick up their own front lawn."
The poor has less resources whether drunk or not. If you don't like the fact that the poor are able to live in your neighborhood, it's time to pack up and move to a more upscale neighborhood. For what it's worth, if the cost of lawn care is lower or lawn care service is more readily available, even the relative poor would be better able to have the lawn professionally taken care of. The solution to the neighbor's bad lawn should be a freemarket one: allowing lawn care service more plentiful, allowing teenagers to do it and allowing people from the next town to do it, not a communistic zoning rule change. If you really don't like the Mexican renters making a mess of the next door property (or just don't like them period), the free market solution is quite simple: rent it yourself, or find enough of like-minded people to share the cost of finding a better renter. Making new laws banning renting to certain types of people would incerase law enforcement expense. On top of that, how is a boarded up house going to make the neighborhood any better? It's ludicrous to think that property owners would prefer renters who run their property to the ground. It's a clear case of the market having spoken: there ain't any better takers. If you really don't want to move, perhaps it's time to import the rich Gulf princeling student who moves in with multiple Mercedeses. Hopefully he won't raise a heckle about how dare you park an old used car in your drive way or that you have idols on your lawn.
No, you do not have to stop using the public road in order to have stopped deriving benefit from the government. Suppose, if someone robs you of $100 and gives your empty wallet back on the spot, do you have to refuse your own wallet in order to avoid being tagged as deriving benefit from the burgarlary? Not at all. The government policy of mandatory tax-and-road-building monopoly does not benefit me at all: because the monopoly is the reason why I have to drive on roads that are worse than I would have gotten if I could decide which private turnpike company I'd like to contribute my resources.
"Also, could you please quote people so we know who you are responding to?"
On the upper right corner, there is a link called "in reply to"
Kent C:Looks to me that what you're experiencing is a clash of cultures. You're gettting overwhelmed by a foreign culture being imposed on you. Then you mix that with gov't aid, and an "illegal status" that makes the problem worse.
That's part of it, but not really the rub. I work in a company that, because of the area it is located in, employs mostly latinos and blacks, and as I am working in HR I can tell you because of the technical nature of some of the work we also have a lot of foreign nationals working for us in the engineering department from the middle east and asia. I have no problem getting on with any of these people. Hell, I like it. I prefer a more cosmipolitan atmosphere. I like different languages being spoken, especially Spanish since I lost most of my ability to speak and understand it long ago when my favorite tex-mex place closed down. I'm picking it back up. And, to be blunt, the women are gorgeous.
But the truth of the matter is the people I'm working with, no matter how alien their culture of origin may be, simply aren't the problem population. The problem population is the leeches. Like I said I want the legal process for coming to the US made easier. I'm not even hot on having English as a requirement, I really couldn't care less. I want to know of any criminal record, any terrorist ties, any diseases they may have I want taken care of, and I want no entitlement slugs. Not much to ask, not unreasonable.
Kent C:Anyway, why is it that so many Americans (Canadians too) are moving to Mexico, at least part of the year, and seem to get along just fine with the Mexicians? My brother is down there now completing his house, I don't hear any complaints about them "partying, harrassing neigbour kids, or letting their property go to seed." Moreover, the Mexicans don't seem to be making a stink about it and demanding all the foreigners leave.
From what I understand of some people I know down there, there are expatriot enclaves and the gringos don't mix much with the local population beyond what is necessary to earn a living, and a lot are simply down there living on a pension that goes a lot further in pesos than dollars. The Mexicans down there are presumably the ones who have stayed. As I already said, well to do or even moderately poor Mexicans who are still making do for themselves aren't going to tunnel under the border or strap the basement door to their ass and float over here. No one is complaining about doctors or dentists or even fruit pickers. It's the dregs that are coming across: those who for various reasons from sloth to inherent criminality can't make it down there. Some of this is due to social dynamics down there, which when explained to me seem to be a watered down version of a caste system where some people are considered permanently 'untouchable', a good bit due to a strangling government as well. And the gangs. Which is why one area I do stick to principle is the drug war. Ending it now ends a lot of gang violence and involvment in the drug trade, and solves a lot of problems on the borders as well as in inner cities here.
Kent C:Maybe the a problem with Mexicans in the U.S. is because they're illegal and not welcome? We know that if the gov't legalized drugs, the dealers and gang violence surrounding the drug trade would deminish, maybe the same applies with the illegality of immigrants?
It's possible that would alleviate some problems, more specifically housing issues I brought up earlier. A better cure for that issue though is to kill the Fed, which is another area where I don't compromise. But I have a hard time believing illegal status encourages other crimes like DUI, robbery, burglary, rape, murder, etc., to the extent that such a miniscule portion of the population would be such disproportionately high offenders. The latino portion of population here is only about 10-15% I believe, the illegal portion much smaller. It's not latinos that are the problem though, it's the illegals to a very disproportionately high level. And, in reference to another post that wasn't directed at me, that does hold it seems, but to a lesser extent, for other illegals like Canadians, Irish, Italian, etc., according to the COs I know. Mexicans/latinos likely dominate because they are the predominant illegal immigrant group right now.
Kent C:I'm only half kidding here. If one group is becoming dominant, maybe immigration needs to be a bit more balanced. I'm trying to think of a practical way to deal with this issue that is at least not entirely anti-libertarian and authoritarian.
In terms of prioritization I don't think it works. The effects of illegal immigration are derrivative of the existence of welfare. I'm not arguing otherwise, just that it's a bit ridiculous to ignore real, practical problems illegal immigration causes to focus your attention exclusively on ending welfare handouts when you can deal with both. Ending welfare handouts, to illegals and to everyone in general, is a long term goal and one you're not going to achieve overnight or even in a year or a decade. But changing border policy a bit is doable in the short to medium term and can alleviate some of the problems people are dealing with while you shoot for the longer term goal.
JimS:And that "optimal level" is not a fixed level.
I never said it was. There is no fixed optimal level of credit either, but it is generally understood that the government and Fed's actions trend to lowering it below the natural level that would otherwise be discovered.
JimS:Not true at all. For the first time in a long time, in the past year, more US nationals emigrated to Canada than Canadians emigrated to the US. I went to an American (US national) enclave in Mexico on a business trip early this year, the real estate price there is already rapidly approaching US prices (as in coastal US prices, much higher than the middle parts of the US), all bid up by US nationals who are considering retirement there. Let's face it, red tapes and taxes are not attractive to either native borns or would be immigrants.
Are you talking about legal or illegal immigration? Despite your ideals, there is a difference.
JimS:The theory of anti-immigration is that if we crack down hard enough on immigration, it will stop, and the crackdown doesn't cost us much
Actually if you had read my posts you'd see I wanted the legal process of immigration to be made easier. I grow tire of repeating this. Next time I'm posting a quiz to ensure you have read my posts before replying.
JimS:People won't stop coming (and going) just because it's illegal.
Actually you've got it wrong. Legal consequences are a cost everyone considers, and they do affect marginal behavior. Drug laws do stop some people from using drugs. The demand is inelastic however so the laws have to be draconian to get true results, and a relaxation of the laws doesn't lead to much more use. It would lead to more use though, plain and simple. The success of many countries in stemming illegal immigration suggests that the demand in that area is not so inelastic and the behavior can be reigned in through legal consequences.
And, once more, I am not suggesting making immigration harder, I am suggesting we make legal immigration EASIER while also upping the consequences of illegal immigration. Got that? Do I have to repeat it another trillion times before you will understand I am not talking about closing the borders? Since the rest of your post proceeds from a complete lack of understanding of what I'm saying, it's not worth responding to at this point.
JimS:Shouldn't the corrective measures (if such expensive procedures be undertaken, as we know coercion is expensive) be directed towards slovenliness, unproductivity and bona fide criminality, instead of whether somone is in posession of certain types of papers?
Once more, completely misunderstanding my point. To be blunt I'm tired of responding to people who can't even put the effort in to understand a post. Have a nice day.
Theft is not a crime unique to immigrants. What's next? lock up all people making less than $50k a year because they have a higher propensity to theft?
As for different license plates, making it legal for them to apply and get real license plates would go a long way towards solving the problem.
While we are on the subject of draconian solutions, let's nuke the entire neighborhoods where neighbors would enter your garage and help themselves to your tools, and entire neighborhoods where there are unlicensed cars . . . before such trashy neighborhoods spread into my neighborhood :-) tongue firmly in cheek of course.
From your reply I can see that these things are not happening to you. God, or your particular idol, graces you. Those of us who have no choice but to put up with people taking what they wish while we are at work to support our families and to replace what was taken applaud you for living in a place where that doesn't happen. Seems easy though to propose that we who are losing our possessions should just suck it up and persevere.
I do not propose locking up everyone making less than $50K per year, just the ones that steal from others. Seems fairly logical, don't you think? (Going from crime being unique to immigrants to locking up an economic class of people was quite a leap, nice work. Shows that you are quite intellectually light on your feet, or something.)
As I peruse my newspaper each day I notice that the surnames of those involved in crime and mayhem in my area are, in most cases, Latin. Because law officers are forbidden to inquire as to the arrested's legality status we are not privy to that information. Seems a shame, though, that we, as a nation, cannot at least keep that type person from preying on our citizens without being labeled as racists and anti-immigration.
Making it legal for illegals to apply and get real license plates flies in the face of logic, now doesn't it? If they aren't supposed to be here why, in the name of all that is logical, would you want to allow them to have legal licenses? Pretty warped thinking. Also, considering the fact that most people identify vehicles by their tags and theives do not like to be identified, changing plates quite regularly helps the theives maintain a certain amount of anonymity.
Then you don't know immigration laws as they currently stand. If you are a Canadian, you are free to be in the US for 90 days. In fact, hotels and stores love you if you patronize them, as your spending create new jobs here. Then on the 91st day, you are an illegal alien for having overstayed your visa. Now tell me, how on the 91st day, you suddenly become "dangerous to our health and welfare"?? Likewise, if you legally came in on student visa. Upon your graduation, if you take a job from IBM, you are legal. However, if you start a company called MBI and hire two people, suddenly you are an illegal alien for violating student visa restrictions on non-participation in business, never mind that you are not only not taking jobs away from US nationals, you are actually creating jobs! That's how crazy immigration laws are today. Yes, the hypothetical founder of MBI wouldn't be able to get a driver's license without somehow find a way to push enough paper to make his status legal again. Big surprise? Not really, big business always find a way to twist legistlations to benefit themselves: big companies are far more likely to have a dedicated department to handle immigration paper works, so the government leg breakers serve to provide the big companies with virtually exclusive access to that pool of relatively inexpensive talented labor . . . at the expense of US nationals who might have been hired by the startup or US consumers who would have benefitted from the startups of course.
Is that the kind of arbitrary law that we really want to defend?
Until you can get a better one passed, yes.
Shoudn't the issue be property right enforcement/protection instead? Making it an immigration issue reminds me of the date rape hysteria of the early 90's: sure, some men do bad things, but that's not a reason to lock up all men until proven innocent.
The point is, and I'll make it as simple as I possibly can, that if the illegals were not where they should not be, meaning in this country, they wouldn't be taking my stuff, things that I have worked hard for.
If that sounds like the date rape argument to you, well, some clearer thinking might be in order. The fact that all men were accused, having committed no offense, does not compare with those illegals, who, having found that they are and can remain anonymous in the eyes of the law, begin to believe that they can do and act as they wish and make what is yours theirs. Admittedly, not all illegals act in this manner but a growing number do. Check the statistics on who does time for crimes. If they were not here, illegally, they would not be committing these crimes.
There are other just and true reasons for trying to control immigration, as you know, but my feeling is that you can, in your own mind, equivocate those out of existence.
Regarding the prison population, how many of them are hard crimes, how many of them are crimes created by the legal process, such as driving without license because they are not legally allowed to have one? As for DUI, I actually got stopped once, and the rooky cop tried to insinuate that I was driving drunk because my face was flushed after getting pulled over; I hardly drink any alcoholic beverage at all, much less getting drunk ever. Guess what his first question was? What was my immigration status. I was quite dumb-founded . . . that's what my tax money is being used for?? I was tempted to tell him that I pay more in taxes every year than he gets paid wearing those jackboots.
What you have described is symptoms of poverty. You can easily find youths, US nationals, who shack up in tiny New York apartments beyond their supposed capacity. That's what being young and being poor means. Eventually, most of them build up enough wealth to be counted among the middle-class if not upper class; that is, unless we make laws to keep them poor, such as not allowing them to have driver's licenses or jobs. We used to admire individuals who made themselves upper class upstandign citizens despite their Bohemian origins. What now? People have to be born with parents buying them chatels whenever they relocate?
What's a chatel?
"I am suggesting we make legal immigration EASIER while also upping the consequences of illegal immigration. "
Okay, I missed reading the first half of your position. I'm sure you are aware though, anti-illegal-immigration has more or less become a code word for anti-immigration in today's US society . . . simply because the current law makes all sorts of common behavior illegal for immigrants. In other words, the "illegal" vs. "legal" is purely definitional. For example, a Canadian tourist in the country for 90 days is legal, but on the 91st day is an illegal alien; during any of those 90 days, if the person sells an item on Ebay, he also becomes an illegal alien!
I'm all for cracking down on violent crimes and property crimes. However, punishing a whole identifiable group of people for victimless "crimes" that may or may not be corrrelated to any violent crimes or property crimes is inefficient and wasteful to taxpayers who have to pay for the law enforcement bills. The classic example being Prohibition . . . with war on drugs achieving the same sort of wastefulness. Prohibiition on people who smuggle themselves will be even more costly than prohibition on smuggling alcohol and drugs. Sure, some petty property crimes may be related to certain types of immigrants, especially when there are laws prohibitting their pursuit of happiness through legal means; that, however, is no different from the fact that people committing petty theft are overwhelmingly in the low income group. It makes no sense to lock people who can't make $50k, heck even $30k, or even $10k; it makes equally little sense to lock people up for paper deficiency.
"Because law officers are forbidden to inquire as to the arrested's legality status we are not privy to that information. "
That's may not be a correct assumption. I was pulled over a couple months ago because one of my car's headlights died and I was going at speed limit in the rain. Apparently going at speed limit wasn't good enough for the officer because it was raining. I actually had a spare light bulb in the trunk (yes, I'm that fastideous when it comes to backup plans) but it was raining after the light burned out that day so I hadn't yet got around to install the halogen bulb. Guess what was one of the first questions that the officer asked? Yup, my immigration status. Go figure.
"If they aren't supposed to be here why, in the name of all that is logical, would you want to allow them to have legal licenses?"
Because driver's license is a state ID, whereas "illegal immigrant" is not a state crime. On top of that, being able to drive is in most parts of the country a necessity to mitigate poverty. Unless you want a boom of petty property crimes, you don't automaticly exclude certain groups from driver's license eligibility. Oh, wait, perhaps the game is to make the financially poor illegal immigrants commit petty crimes, then a national ID system and all other sorts of monitoring systems can be implemented to control all US nationals.
If the first part is true, then why not legalize all of it? If one truly wants to make legal immigration easier, then why not simply remove all barriers to legally immigrating, which implies the removal of the very concept of illegal immigration. The very existance of illegalizing immigration makes legal immigration less easy. Why do you think those of us on the other side of the debate consider you people to be "anti-immigration"? Because the legal/illegal distinction does not make any sense. If one opposes "illegal immigration", then one is implicitly supporting restriction on immigration itself to begin with, since the (partial) illegalization of immigration is just that. It's to enforce barriers to legally immigrating in the first place, and is therefore simply anti-immigration. So when I see people say, "I'm all for legal immigration, I'm against illegal immigration", I laugh.
"instead of spending their money in the country where it was earned it is sent out to other countries. i believe you get the point but want to turn it around and use it against me. nice try but it doesn't make sense. they are taking more out than they are returning. if they spent earned money here it would be a wash. "
How many illegals do you employ? Are you making quite a bundle onthem? We have no argument on the first point. If they were to spend theirmoney here instead of sending it out of the country....oh, what the heck, you aren't really listening anyway! I like the 'common man' comment though.You really put me in my place with that phrase. I guess I just didn't knowwho I was talking to.
I was a at a local ER less than a year ago for a borken finger nail. The bill came to $2700, for a thumb X-RAY and having to wait for four hours to see three paper pushers who were not even nurses. There wasn't a single Hispanic in the ER, besides the cleaning guy. There are all sorts of reasons why medical expenses have gone up: fiat money, third-party-pay clients, restriction on doctor and nurse supply, mulpractice insurance, etc.. Import labor however helps hold cost down not pushing it up. What's next? Walmart import goods driving prices up because anecdotal recall expenses?? Get real, without the import, the prices would be a lot higher, just because of all the wasteful paper pushing and protected jobs that we have here.
I am an ER nurse and see what happens every evening I am on the job. I work 3 twelve hour shifts per week. Sorry about your thumb nail (the ERfor a thumb nail?) but you don't have the experience here to be lecturing tome. If not for the fact that the majority of those seen in the ER do not pay their bill that $2700 would have been much less. As far as personnel in theER, we don't have enough nurses working the job now. And they keep leavingdue to burn out. We get people in complaining of broken finger nails and minor things that could have been handled by a primary physician the nextday but because the law says we have to treat them the real emergent casessometimes have to wait until we clear a room of a broken finger nail patient. In regards to import labor holding down cost, when 3/4 of all thosewe see are there for sniffles and finger nails the cost of labor is not helddown. More nurses and doctors are required and costs go up. Being an economics whiz I fail to see why you cannot understand that.
"Until you can get a better one passed, yes."
So, are you for the rigorous enforcement of state sales tax laws too? That there should be cops in neighborhoods waiting for UPS trucks and taking evidence, then coming April 15th arrest the tax dodgers who order online but do not pay state sales tax?
Again, we are doing our best to avoid the point that these people are here illegally. That, in itself, is a crime. Notice the word, ILLEGAL? They do not belong here and to give them a drivers license would legitimize an illegal activity. Additionally, in most states having a drivers license allows one access to the ballot box. If you are not a legal citizen you have no right to vote.
I see so much equivocation and rationalization on this blog. But, I guess that is the type of person that flocks to these things. If you can't have your way use subterfuge. I think I am getting sick. Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. So many of the people on this blog are so wrapped up in hating the government that they would be on the side of a charged child rapist and against the 'jackboot thugs' no matter how convincing the evidence. It would seem that there are no criminals, only laws that outlaw natural human behavior like murder, rape and theft. Why, it's not the fault of the perpetrator, the government just made laws that made the poor guys activities illegal.
"How many illegals do you employ? Are you making quite a bundle onthem?"
None that I'm aware of, and I do check ID's when hiring regular employees and independent contracts that I use on regular basis for my business . . . because I need their tax ID's to file my taxes. I pay enough to have US nationals stampeding to my door whenever I advertise, so there's no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel yet, so to speak. Besides, fluent English is a pre-requisite for my line of work.
Looks like I need to give a little detail on my accident: I jammed my thumb in the car door by accident in the middle of the night, and it was bleeding non-stop, so waiting for my regular physician for an appointment in two weeks or even any physician in her office the next day wasn't exactly an option. $2700 was still quite a lot though. Even as the insurance plan that I pay $15k a year for is quite comprehensive and the visit didn't cost me a thing (okay, maybe a co-pay, but it's so miniscule I don't even remember if it was required), it still made me quite upset about how much the insurance company was billed for. More nurses and doctors? the place was practically empty. It just took forever for the non-nurse non-doctor paper-pushers to process me, and the 2 or 3 other patients that were there the whole four hours that I was there. Out of the four hours that I was at the hospital, the X-Ray technician spent 5 minutes with me, and the doctor spent another 10 minutes, much of it in friendly chatting as he had nothing else to do. Methinks there are far greater problems behind the cost of healthcare in this country beyond the illegal immigrant or other uninsured users . . . such as the need to push so much paper for fear of being sued. BTW, I'm for scrapping laws that mandate hospitals having to take all patients showing up at the door.
Get the law changed. Quit bitching about it and do something about it. Til then we work under the laws we have.
"Again, we are doing our best to avoid the point that these people are here illegally. That, in itself, is a crime. Notice the word, ILLEGAL? They do not belong here and to give them a drivers license would legitimize an illegal activity. Additionally, in most states having a drivers license allows one access to the ballot box. If you are not a legal citizen you have no right to vote. "
Come on, did you drive across state border to buy something or mail order anything last year? Did you voluntarily pay state sales tax on them to your home state last April? Did you ever use any alcohol before the age of 21? Should we post a neighborhood watch or have security camera around all homes to make sure that such ILLEGAL activities do not take place? I suppose you would support laws against run-away slaves, too, and then support invasion of the South after Lincoln proclaimed that it was ILLEGAL to secede.
As a supporter of State Rights, I think the right to vote should be determined by each individual state. The federal citizenship/voting right should be at best a sufficient condition, but not a necessary condition. Many states indeed gave women the vote long before the federal law requiring it. Individual states should have the right to expand sufferage beyond what's required by the federal government.
"Get the law changed. Quit bitching about it and do something about it. Til then we work under the laws we have."
Duh, isn't this forum is about whether existing laws and enforcement make sense? I take it that you are indeed for posting cops and security cameras around all private homes just to make sure people follow the law and pay state sales taxes when they mail order because . . . it's the laws that we have and we ought to enforce it.
Looks like I need to give a little detail on my accident: I jammed my thumb in the car door by accident in the middle of the night, and it was bleeding non-stop, so waiting for my regular physician for an appointment in two weeks or even any physician in her office the next day wasn't exactly an option. $2700 was still quite a lot though. Even as the insurance plan that I pay $15k a year for is quite comprehensive and the visit didn't cost me a thing (okay, maybe a co-pay, but it's so miniscule I don't even remember if it was required), it still made me quite upset about how much the insurance company was billed for. More nurses and doctors? the place was practically empty. It just took forever for the non-nurse non-doctor paper-pushers to process me, and the 2 or 3 other patients that were there the whole four hours that I was there. Out of the four hours that I was at the hospital, the X-Ray technician spent 5 minutes with me, and the doctor spent another 10 minutes, much of it in friendly chatting as he had nothing else to do. Methinks there are far greater problem behind the cost of medicine in this country beyond the illegal immigrant or other uninsured users . . . such as the need to push so much paper for fear of being sued. BTW, I'm for scrapping laws that mandate hospitals having to take all patients showing up at the door.
Sounds to me like you are on the wrong side of this issue. Branding illegals as "bottom of the barrel", requiring English instead of trying to institute changes and requiring positive ID as a condition of employment. Sounds like we are closer to agreement, in practice, than not.
Sorry about the thumb thing. I really do understand and I did use it against you. Again, I am sorry about that.
I am sure, though, that you know the point that I was trying to make. Illegals using the ER as their primary doctor, because they are illegal and should not be in this country, push up costs.
The fact that you had to spend so much time filling out forms is quite another issue. One could argue that were it not for lawyers this country would be in better shape and life would be a lot simpler. Lawyers, by their very nature, are contrary people and should have their knuckled broken at graduation from law school and not be allowed to open their mouths for anything other than to eat. In my opinion lawyers have made it hard for every one of us to live our lives. At one time in this country neighbor would help neighbor without regard to liability. When I was young and caused trouble at a neighbor's house that neighbor would swat my behind and send me home where, if my dad found out, would do more than swat it. Lawyers, though, have succeeded in pitting one of us against the other. The laws passed by your and my legislators (most of whom are lawyers) favor more work for lawyers. Lawyers are the reason for the vileness of society today. They press for rights where none exist and deny rights where they have always been in this country.
Just my view on lawyers. I probably should have kept it to myself. Not fodder for this blog.
So we need no law? Or do you want to be the one who decides what laws to observe and when it should be enforced?
Sounds to me that you would rather live under anarchy. Get your shotgun and hole up against the roaming hoards unleashed by allowing any and all behavior. I think I have seen movies like that. Interesting. Seems those people in those movies lived from day to day merely existing until the next meal. Maybe I am wrong but I think we need some regulations controlling human behavior to live as a society. You can argue whether a specific law is good or bad but as long as that law exists to do other than observe it is to advocate and invite anarchy. Be careful you may get your wish.
Another control on behavior, besides law, seems to be religion. I would argue, though, that the control religion and religious institutions have on behavior has been eroded over time to the point that today we argue over the legitimacy of religion as a whole. People in this country no longer seem to see the need to act in a religious manner and see nothing wrong with violating most of the commandments (suggestions).
And there is a third control on behavior. That, I believe, is women. Women seem to demand a certain level of civility in men. If a man does not act in a civil manner in his dealings with or near the woman of his choice she has many ways of showing disfavor toward him. She can withhold certain favors from him or at least be restrained in her enthusiasm when bestowing those favors. She, then, has a very effective control on behavior. When it gets to the point where women become uncivilized I believe we are lost. (One could argue that women have already reached that point, but I believe that to be true only in a very few highly publicized cases.)
Glad we are discovering more points that we agree on. I have long been of the opinion that individuals and private business should be allowed to discriminate on whatever ground . . . usually to their own detriment. Fluent English (along with good social skills) is a requirement in my hiring because my business invovles a lot of client interaction, and most pretty much all my clients speak English.
I agree that a lot of our existing laws seem to be designed to set one group of people against another, divide and control, so that there are more profit opportunities for politicians and in some cases lawyers. Laws against private discrimination is one; laws that require hospital accept all who show up at the door is another. The immigration issue is yet another one of those red herrings. It's an issue designed to make one group of people call for more state intervention in the form of jackbooted law enforcement against victimless crimes, while pushing a group of people who would be naturally entrepreneurial towards a protection racket set up by another group of politicians whose real agenda is the nanny state. The US has prospered for two centuries through the integration of generations of immigrants. The immigrant-control issue has really get in the way of integration. The divisions make for fertile ground for profiteering by politicians, bureacrats and lawyers alike. If there were no such laws, and people are free to come and go as they please so long as they can support themselves without infriging upon the private property of other individuals and businesses, there would be much less of the freeloaders in the political, bureacratic and lawyer classes on this issue.
Brainpolice:If the first part is true, then why not legalize all of it?
Because letting someone with ten infectious diseases, parasites, no work ethic, and a criminal record that reads like Tolstoy across the border and giving them citizenship is stupid. The legal/illegal distinction doesn't make sense if you're an ideologue and can't distinguish between a compromise that makes some kind of sense and completely compromised policies that make no sense, the latter of which is our current policy. There is one and only one way to do things in your mind, all else is 'collectivism.'
Brainpolice:Because the legal/illegal distinction does not make any sense. If one opposes "illegal immigration", then one is implicitly supporting restriction on immigration itself to begin with, since the (partial) illegalization of immigration is just that. It's to enforce barriers to legally immigrating in the first place, and is therefore simply anti-immigration.
This is so convoluted and impenetrable it could have come from Bush himself. If you can't distinguish between closed borders and mine fields and gatling gun emplacements, and checking people for head lice, diseases, and criminal and/or terrorist records and ties before granting them citizenship, then common sense said 'bye bye' to you a long, long time ago. Yes, I'm sure in a perfectly privatized world that will never exist such problems would be minimized and dealt with through private alternatives. But, if you would, come out of the fantasy of theory and join us in reality for a few moments, you would see that trying to portray the issue as black and white when there at least a few shades of grey in the middle is ridiculous.
If you insist on dismissing any and all compromise in your perfect theoretical system that involves a government and some action on its part as 'collectivism' or any other such thing, then you are shutting down any and all possibilities for common sense debate. Which is why such ideological pontificating accomplishes diddly in the real world. The reason RP is appealing to people is precisely because his position is a compromise, not some hard line doctrinaire position that ignores the real practical impact of policy. As such people can relate, some headway might be made, and we'd be living in a better country and world because of it. But, since it's a compromise, I guess he, I, and everyone else of our ilk should simply put on a fez and start cheering for the ressurection of the USSR in your view.
You're getting way too personal about this, Xahrx. Cheering for the ressurection of the USSR? Are you really going to verge on red-baiting? The legal/illegal distinction doesn't make sense because it's an arbitrary state-created categorization.
Law enforcement is expensive because it entails forcing people to do things that they do not naturally want to do. That includes both the target of enforcement and the enforcer, who have to be paid a lot to under take the risk of using violence and being fought back. That's why laws should be crafted as the minimal set necessary (if at all). A lot of anti-immigration advocates, IMHO, suffer from the same affliction as advocates of Prohibition; the enforcement of a ban on subjects that have a thinking brain and two legs is probably going to be a lot more difficult than the ban on passive barrels of alcohol. If the enforcement becomes forceful, corruption is guarateed to be rampant. Fake ID's are not exactly new, even national network of databases can be easily tempered with. After all, that's what witness protection programs do. How much money are we tax payers willing to spend on fighting yet another un-winnable war on victimless behavior? Not having a piece of paper is victimless; property crimes are a different issue, in fact it can be argued that if not having a piece of paper doesn't stop one from having a gainful employment, property crime rate would go down as a consequence.
Hollywood's portrayal of the Wild West has been debunked quite a few times on this website. In fact, there were less murders in the period of anarchy in the west than in the period after institution of government. Hobbs and Locke debated this issue centries ago. The Hobbesian Leviathan is quite unnecessary for the prosperity of a society. Cooperation is a more profitable strategy than routine employment of violence in a free market place. Violence only becomes a winning strategy when there is some sort of monopoly involved. Remember, gangs of the Al Capone era relied on federal ATF to be the leg breaker against mom and pop alcohol making competition. As soon as the Prohibition was repealed, Capone's gang was out of business. Even today, gangs live off drug money, which once again is a monopoly created by government enforcement against drugs: small time mom and pop drug makers are outlawed, so only the gangs can carry on the trade. If we have a "war on illegal immigrants," I'm afraid that the criminal gangs will have a new and even more profitable revenue source in trafficing human and making fake documents (including tempering with federal data bases). Do we really want to live in a world where our own existence and rights are dependent on our numerical representation in some kind of data base, and that it's subject to tempering?
I cannot help myself. I must respond to these statements.
Sounds to me that you would rather live under anarchy.
Yes please! You do realize that anarchists are a part of the libertarian movement, and this very website harbors many of them?
Get your shotgun and hole up against the roaming hoards unleashed by allowing any and all behavior.
Oh, come on. Libertarians should know better then to make such cliche mischaracterization of what anarchism means. Anarchism does not mean nihilism or hedonism. It simply means "no rulers", free association, and implies a polycentric or pluralist approach to social organization. "No rulers" does not necessarily imply no law or no social organization. We already have a state in place and we still have people engaging in all sorts of unethical behavior, including members of the state of course. We still have thieves, murderers, arsonists, and so on. Of course, the state itself is the ultimate band of robbers, murderers and arsonists.
Maybe I am wrong but I think we need some regulations controlling human behavior to live as a society. You can argue whether a specific law is good or bad but as long as that law exists to do other than observe it is to advocate and invite anarchy.
The problem is that morality cannot be coerced. Someone has to choose to be moral. Laws in themselves do not cause people to be moral. Murderers will be murderers regaurdless of wether or not a law is in place making murder illegal. This is not to say that I encourage or support murder, but the point is that to think that the existance of a law prohibiting something will stop it from happening is rather illogical if you really understand human behavior. It is impossible to truly escape a "state of nature", we are always in one. The real question is a matter of what we will make of it. Human nature is exactly the same with or without a government. The introduction of a government into society does not magically improve human nature in any way. Even if the state actively attempts to socially engineer society, society and the market has its own inertia and laws that defy such attempts (like when prohibitions lead to black markets and when price controls lead to shortages and surpluses, just to name a few examples).
Given that one reasonably does have a concern that there are bad people in the world who will do bad things, it is understandable that one will object to anarchy. But the anarchist response is this: all negative aspects of human nature that you use as an arguement against anarchy applies to a statist society. Members of the state will have the exact same flaws and have self-interest like everyone else. There is nothing to stop these bad people from taking over your state. Thus, introducing government into society does not improve the matter. Arguably, it makes the matter worse because you have provided a monopolistic institutional framework through which bad people can use for their ends. If one objects, in the spirit of democracy, that "the people" can stop this from occuring under a statist society, you are still engaging in a self-refuting line of arguementation because if your complaint is that "the people" are naturally bad in the first place, then "the people" cannot be a reasonable counter-balance to the state either. If "the people" are naturally evil to begin with, then this will be reflected in your democratic government.
Another control on behavior, besides law, seems to be religion. I would argue, though, that the control religion and religious institutions have on behavior has been eroded over time to the point that today we argue over the legitimacy of religion as a whole.
Of course, as an atheist, I view this as a good thing. I don't believe that religions, deities or governments are necessary for one to believe in ethics and act ethically. I view the idea that, in the absence of governments and gods, there is nihilism or hedonism, to be incorrect. I see the idea that our ethics must come from either divine revelation or an appeal to authority to be dangerous. I believe that ethics can easily be formed on the basis of reason, cold logic, empirical testing and universality. Of course, I'm not some kind of Marxist who wishes to forcibly ban religion. But, on the other side of the coin, I do view religious institutions as historically being quite coercive, and I sympathize with Tolstoy in his opposition to religion institutionalism, and being in favor of a more personal and individualistic approach. In some ways, I see the way some people are brought up into religions as a form of child abuse. So I have no problem with the secularization of society, and see it as an inevitable course of social evolution if anything.
"Because letting someone with ten infectious diseases, parasites, no work ethic, and a criminal record that reads like Tolstoy across the border and giving them citizenship is stupid. "
In theory perhaps, but in practice a relatively limited set of restrictions that started in the late 19th century have over time evolved to today's situation where a Canadian tourist can be deported on the 91st of his stay in this country and banned from re-entry for the rest of his life. BTW, I'm pretty sure that most people carry on them more than 10 potentially infectious disease agents, and some parasites. Work ethic is a highly debatable issue depending on what the economic set up is; a lot of people in the government sector in this country for example have little to no work ethic. Criminal record depends on what the previous country considers crime . . . I suppose being against the totalitarian government would be a big crime in a lot of totalitarian countries. BTW, both Georgia and Australia were founded as penal colonies; both seem to have worked out fine after the criminals were shipped from messy England and had to fend for themselves.
"terrorist records"
Ah. . . that scary bogeyman again. If someone is proven to be linked to terrorist organizations, wouldn't it be better if the person comes to the US and get arrested on terrorist charges, instead of running loose somewhere that we can not monitor and plotting against us? The old saying, keep your friends close, but enemy closer still! I wonder how many of today's advocates for immigration control had been advocating screening of clear-cut white male renting Ryder trucks before 9-11; after all, Timothy McVeigh committed the gravest act of terrorism on US soil up till then, and he did it with a Ryder truck loaded with a few barrels of fertilizers.
Brainpolice:You're getting way too personal about this, Xahrx. Cheering for the ressurection of the USSR? Are you really going to verge on red-baiting? The legal/illegal distinction doesn't make sense because it's an arbitrary state-created categorization.
All laws are arbitrary state created categorizations and/or proscriptions. So what? That's the way things are, you seem to insist on dealing with them as you wish they were. Red baiting? Anything anyone proposes that isn't pure anarchy is dismissed by you guys as 'collectivism,' 'statism,' etc., etc., as if anyone who doesn't adhere to a pure, anarcho capitalist doctrine might as well start singing The Internationale. It's more than a bit ridiculous, especially when it's already acknowledged that the positions being advocated deviate from anarcho capitalist perfection. Someone writes, "Here is a position, not purely in line with anarcho capitalism, but which might lead to a better overall practical situation than we have now and more liberty overall for the citizens of the US, and we could do this while fighting for ideals and striking at the root of the overall problem." You reply, "That isn't a pure market solution, you're a statist, gobble gobble gobble..." Pointing out the already acknowledged, and the ridiculously obvious, isn't a debate. It's the reaction you get from an ideologue who simply will not countenance any deviation from the purety of his theory.
I suggest checking immigrants for diseases and criminal records before allowing them citizenship, you imply that's the same as mining the border and essentially locking everyone in cages and only allowing them the ability to move with a federal license. If you can't distinguish between two compromises, neither of which is ideal but one of which is for practical purposes closer to the ideal and thus better overall, what exactly are you doing besides pointing out the obvious, that any compromise isn't the ideal? I mean, if you're starving and want an orange but there are none and someone hands you a tangerine, are you not going to take it because it's not an orange? "Sorry, that is not the ideal situation, therefore it isn't even worth considering..." Because that is essentially the substance of the debate here so far. And Jim S., Christ he just admitted he'd gone through I don't know how many posts of 'debate' without even reading my full position, and to be blunt that seems to be the way most of you guys are approaching the issue. Can I blame people for equating my position with some close the borders Pat Buchanna type of zenophobia? Hell yes, because that's not the position I'm advocating and having the basic courtesy to acknowledge some distinction there, and in the case of Jim to learn to use the quote function, isn't asking much.
Question: on the Maher boards, did it not infuriate you to no end when people lumped you in with the likes of Sean Hannity? The way the lefties there refused to make any distinction between any position to the right of Marx and simply tossed them all into one bucket of ideological slop, did that perplex you and get under your skin a bit? Well pot, kettle, black, BP. You guys are doing the same thing by taking anyone who doesn't simply want totally open borders and implying they are nothing but 'statists,' 'collectivists,' etc., etc., when in reality there's a bit more nuance to the real world and the positions people hold than such categorical dismissals allow.
"terrorist records" Ah. . . that scary bogeyman again. If someone is proven to be linked to past terrorist acts agains the US, wouldn't it be better if the person comes to the US and get arrested on terrorist charges, instead of running loose somewhere that we can not monitor and plotting against us? The old saying, keep your friends close, but enemy closer still! I wonder how many of today's advocates for immigration control had been advocating screening of clear-cut white male renting Ryder trucks before 9-11; after all, Timothy McVeigh committed the gravest act of terrorism on US soil up till then, and he did it with a Ryder truck loaded with a few barrels of fertilizers.
Ah. . . that scary bogeyman again. If someone is proven to be linked to past terrorist acts agains the US, wouldn't it be better if the person comes to the US and get arrested on terrorist charges, instead of running loose somewhere that we can not monitor and plotting against us? The old saying, keep your friends close, but enemy closer still! I wonder how many of today's advocates for immigration control had been advocating screening of clear-cut white male renting Ryder trucks before 9-11; after all, Timothy McVeigh committed the gravest act of terrorism on US soil up till then, and he did it with a Ryder truck loaded with a few barrels of fertilizers.
I somehow doubt that Mexico is the main place harboring terrorists these days anyways.
No, I'm not. If you look back earlier in the thread I openly stated that just because someone is wrong on this particular issue does not mean that they're not a libertarian. I agree with Walter Block that it is unfair to say "youre not a libertarian" to someone for disagreeing on one issue like immigration. On the other hand, when it is blatantly obvious that people are supporting the full "closed borders" bandwagon, that their position on immigration barely differs from that of Pat Buchannan, I will not shy away from pointing out that, at least on this issue, they are harboring nationalist, protectionist paleo-conservative tendencies. I have no problem employing those terms because that's precisely what it is.
I'll grant that, in your case at least, your position may be more subtle then that of Pat Buchannan. But I have seen plenty of others posters on this thread who strike me as paleo-conservative types, taking a pretty hard paleo-conservative line on the issue. I've seen the border fence defended, I've seen police raids on employers defended, I've seen the government equated to a private property owner. I'm critisizing the entirety of the anti-immigration position. I would have thought that, even libertarians who are immigration restrictionists would have a subtle enough position not to support border fences and police raids on employers. I was wrong.
"I somehow doubt that Mexico is the main place harboring terrorists these days anyways."
Exactly. The terrorism argument is totally a bogeyman argument. None of the 9-11 terrorists came through the Mexico border. It's as if after the Timothy McVeigh bombing, they instituted a law against immigrant drivers to prevent another McVeigh, a clean cut US national (and a veteran of our former intervention over seas, I might add) . . . oh, wait, they did exactly that!
JimS:In theory perhaps, but in practice a relatively limited set of restrictions that started in the late 19th century have over time evolved to today's situation where a Canadian tourist can be deported on the 91st of his stay in this country and banned from re-entry for the rest of his life.
Indeed. So the old right movement is made up of statists and collectivists I assume? Because there was some disagreement amongst them as to just how far back government should be taken. Not all were Rothbard, not all wanted no state or at least a return to the Articles of Confederation. But of course for someone like you, the proper course would be to dismiss them all as statists and collectivists and refuse to associate with them.
Either we assume we can enact some positive change in our system and roll the government back somewhat, or we start shooting the politicians. I say the government can be rolled back, that it is possible to get it to retract. That a bloodless revolution is possible and it doesn't necessarily have to lead to anarcho capitalist utopia for it to be worthwhile.
JimS:Ah. . . that scary bogeyman again. If someone is proven to be linked to past terrorist acts agains the US, wouldn't it be better if the person comes to the US and get arrested on terrorist charges, instead of running loose somewhere that we can not monitor and plotting against us?
That boogey man wiped out more than a few of my friends and over 200 of my then girlfriend's coworkers on 9/11. That boogey man is real, he is under the bed, and your sheets aren't going to protect you. Yes, we should deny Muslim extremists entrance into this country if at all possible. Because I'd prefer not to lose another few thousand people to that kind of hell again. And yes, the true solution to the problem is to stop pissing them off so they want to kill us, but even if we were to end all foreign intervention tomorrow, which I am in favor of, for practical (there's that word again...) purposes that hatred is not simply going to die out overnight, and it might make some kind of practical (there it is again...) sense to have some kind of reasonable screening process in place.
Or, in other words and once more, we need not abandon all practical and immediate concerns to fight the good ideological fight and let a few more thousand innocents fry because the practical solution to protect them while dealin with the larger issue isn't perfectly in line with a pure anarcho capitalist market solution and might involve to some extent the (shudders...) government.
JimS:Timothy McVeigh committed the gravest act of terrorism on US soil up till then, and he did it with a Ryder truck loaded with a few barrels of fertilizers.
Indeed. But he isn't exactly the rule, more the exception that proves it. It's not raving Scandanavians that are bombing embassies and flying planes into buildings, though if it were I'd recommend background checks for anyone named Sven. However, ignoring practical reality by pointing out that white anglo saxon males aren't the pure model of perfection is to dismiss common sense and reality in favor if ideology. Ideology says all people are capable of good and evil. Practical reality says the evil in question here seems to come from young Muslim males to a somewhat higher proportion than one would expect. Ideology says we should be blind to skin color, religion, culture, ethnicity, etc. Practically, trying to be blind to those things simply means you are refusing to see.
Brainpolice:I would have thought that, even libertarians who are immigration restrictionists would have a subtle enough position not to support border fences and police raids on employers. I was wrong.
Yes you were. Because for practical purposes, if those things work, not using them is a bit foolish. From a practical standpoint it's easier to push on a few thousand employers than it is to round up over ten million illegals. Mises asked, "When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?" What Mises didn't know or didn't allow for is that you can fight fire with fire sometimes. Not always, but you can. And we live in a world where, whether you like it or not, some portion of it will always be burning. It's human nature to be pyros in that metaphorical sense. We either deal with it as best we can using principle and practical compromise where necessary, or stick to pure principle and get fried because we refused to compromise when the time was appropriate.
Of course, a desperate Mexican can get past such a fence within minutes. It hasn't worked and doesn't work. Prohibition in general doesn't work. That's one of the things about this immigration thing that I don't understand from a purely practical economic perspective. Why doesn't prohibition theory apply to immigration and immigrant labor? Why would we think that we can crack down on an immigrant black market, when the immigrant black market is precisely the result of restricting immigration to begin with? And I simply don't buy into the notion that to not do such things will end up creating some kind of major catastrophe. I don't view immigration itself as a fire. And if it is a fire, prohibition theory tells me that trying to further restrict it will only spread the fire.
xahrx: Indeed. So the old right movement is made up of statists and collectivists I assume? Because there was some disagreement amongst them as to just how far back government should be taken. Not all were Rothbard, not all wanted no state or at least a return to the Articles of Confederation. But of course for someone like you, the proper course would be to dismiss them all as statists and collectivists and refuse to associate with them.
Anti-immigration as a political movement started off as a leftist idea championed by the Labor Unions. In any case, I don't often assign labels to particular individuals; instead, if I have to assign labels, I attach them to particular ideas and adovocacies, such as minimum-wage, anti-immigration, public-education etc. as being statist. There are politicians, both on the left and the right supporting those statist ideas.
xahrx: I say the government can be rolled back, that it is possible to get it to retract.
I say the government can be rolled back, that it is possible to get it to retract.
And I agree. However, spending more resources on laws against immigration is a step in the wrong direction. Obviously you can't call something similar to Prohibition and War on Drugs as reducing the size of government regardless whether you are for or against the banning of alcohol and drugs.
9-11 cut pretty close to home for me too, as it took place only a few blocks from where I used to go for Christmass Eve dinner party every year. However, there's little in way of immigration control that could have prevented it, without essentially becoming a huge drag net that excludes such a huge number of people that it becomes an enormous burden on the economy. The way to stop it is by voluntary vigilent reporting by people observe totally odd behaviors such as learning to fly big airliners but do not want to learn how to land . . . Michael Crichton actually mentioned the plot of using airlineers as bombs ins his novels previously. The private sector fulfilled their vigilence; it's the bureacratic officials who dropped the ball. BTW, during the three days of officially enforced no flying after 9-11, apprently only the bin Ladens (relatives of the wanted man) could fly in the US, and were picked up by specially chartered flights all across the US. My guess is that, the more power we hand over to the government, the more such abominable acts of terrorism would take place.
I do not have a favorable view of Islam. However, I'm afraid that any effort to ban it, combined with a hugely expensive and ineffectual state machine that would be required to ban it would lead us down the road that eventually swallowed the Roman Empire: Christianity started off as a cult from a far off land; the Roman state tried to ban it and link it to terrorism (remember Nero?); wouldn't surprise me if some early Christians did engage in terrorism. It really doesn't matter whether early Christians engaged in terrorism, the end result was the same: a people disallusioned by heavy taxation and inflation to fund an empire that got too much in the way of people's lives eventually embraced the religion . . . and that was the end of the empire in the west. IMHO, Islam is fundamentally a collectivist ideology. On a personal level, it's anathama to me just like communism is. However, the correct way to prevent a take-over by such collectivist ideologies is not the founding a MacCarthyist collectivist state ourselves. Let's not forget that neither the Korean Campaign nor Vietnam Campaign won the Cold War for us; detente and playing the USSR vs. Red China against each other brought down communism around the world. There's nothing quite as inspiring as witnessing first-hand the economic freedom that we had. Cultural and economic exchanges quickly convinced both the Russians and the Chinese the errors of their collectivist ways.