Archive for conservatism
I voted for “Open Borders”. I know that a lot of people might be shocked at that, but anyone who has read more than a few posts of this blog should not be surprised.
What are the arguments against illegal immigration?
#1 would certainly be something along the lines of “they’re stealing our jobs.” Well, a job is not a tangible item that one can own. You can’t take your job to the marketplace and sell it. A job is actually a contract where one person sells his labor to another for a specified amount. If someone comes and offers a lower price, or higher quality labor for the same price (as in, someone with prior experience or specialised education), then the contract with the first person may be ended and a new contract made with the second person. Illegal immigrants have an unfair advantage in the labor marketplace, because they are willing and able to offer their labor for a lower price than U.S. Citizens are willing or able to. This advantage is due to Federal intervention in the labor market, but instead of people trying to roll back Federal regulation, they urge even more regulatory power be given to their oppressor (for example, fines for businesses that hire illegals, even if they were tricked by false papers and such). The expense of these new regulations will make it less likely that entrepreneurs will enter the marketplace, and will cause those firms that are just barely making a profit to fail, which will result in fewer opportunites to sell one’s labor (i.e. “jobs”).
The #2 argument against immigration would be related to the differing cultures of the native peoples and the immigrants. Well, the Latino culture already permeates American society, and has since the nation’s early years, so I’m not sure what one should be afraid of. Political differences? The answer to that is to enter the marketplace of ideas, and seek to persuade and teach others the value of limited government and expanded individual liberty. It takes longer to see success through this method, but the effects are longer-lasting.
Most people do not value liberty, however. They do not understand, and therefore fear, the Free Market, even (sometimes especially) self-described political conservatives. Even those who support Free Trade may seek a sort of “labor protectionism”. Those who claim to be very concerned with illegal immigration are, in truth, unserious about the problem. Why do I say this? Because they seek government to redress the problem. They fail to see that the problems with which they are concerned are wholly created by the same Federal Government that they petition to “fix” the problem. I’m sorry, but expecting the FedGov to solve the “illegal immigration problem” is a little like expecting Elmer Fudd to catch you a rabbit.
If conservatives (or liberals who find immigration disturbing) were truly serious about solving illegal immigration, then they should put their money where their mouth is. They should start a fund to finance the purchase of all the land on the north bank of the Rio Grande, and turn the area into a giant Pit Bull and Rottweiler puppy farm/reserve. But why would someone spend his own money, when he can use the political process to force others to finance whatever anti-illegal-immigration scheme he thinks will succeed?
George Gilder, in one of his books (either Wealth and Poverty or The Spirit of Enterprise, I don’t remember which, so you should read both of them), talks about the Cuban refugees who fled to Miami when Castro (may his beard be forever infested with lice) took over that island nation. They didn’t speak English, they had no real skills, and yet they turned that sleepy Southern town into an economic powerhouse. Wealth, in reality, does not reside in material goods, but in human knowledge, skills and abilities. Castro (may his flatulence ever cause embarrassment and offense) thought he had seized the wealth of Cuba when he stole the houses and valuables of the Cuban people who escaped from his oppression; in reality, he had chased Cuba’s wealth to the USA. To put it another way, suppose that we found out that Mexico was secretly transporting large quantities of gold, silver, light sweet crude oil, and technologically advanced capital equipment to the U.S., and placing it in some unprotected place where anyone could go and take it. Would people be angrily demanding that Mexico retrieve all those valuables and take it back to Mexico? I hope not. But in the same way, Mexico is “exporting” to us another, more valuable, sort of wealth when Mexicans immigrate to the U.S.
An objection (and one that I once used) is that with the current welfare state in the U.S., the immigrants are actually stealing wealth from native citizens by living on the dole. Not hardly. If Bill steals your t.v., and Jose accepts an invitation from Bill to watch the superbowl on your televsion, why are you mad at Jose instead of Bill? You need to deal with Bill’s thieving ways, and then the “problem” with Jose goes away. Besides, even if illegal immigrants get a check from the government, they are spending it somewhere, likely in the U.S. marketplace. Better the money go to Taco Hut (oh, I am so racist! What I meant to say, was Burger Hut) than to some government-financed study of the sexual indiscretions of the warbled slug, says I.
There are other arguments concerning terrorism and such, but I’m out of time at the moment, and will try to address these arguments in the near future.
You know, that Emmanuel Goldstein…er…Edward Snowden is a really bad guy. He’s a traitor of the first order, and I hate him so much!! I. Hate. Him. IhatehimIhatehimIhatehimIhatehimIhatehimIhatehimIhatehim…etc.
*two minutes later*
Whew! I feel a sense of catharsis, you know?
Peel away the rhetoric, and one can see that Obama’s reelection will result in the same Progressive-neocon policies that he’s been enacting since 2008. Buy land and gold and silver to protect yourself, and if you need some sort of political outlet, then focus on state politics. Elect state representatives who will stand up to the FedGov; that’s really the only realistic hope the liberty movement ever had.
It should be quite obvious that the best thing to happen would be for the country to split up into regional nations, and get rid of the Federal Government. Most people are too scared of liberty to ever consider this possibility, unfortunately.
Too bad the GOP didn’t nominate Ron Paul; he could have won the election by hitting Obama where he was truly weak: foreign policy. Most Americans are really tired of the whole “perpetual war” policy that Bush started and Obama embraced. Oh, well; at least I got to write his name in (that’s right; there was a space for write-ins on the MS ballot, after all. They just don’t count a write-in vote unless one of the candidates on the ballot are in some way incapacitated).
Oh, boy, does he ever. If one reads this article and still insists on voting for Romney as the “lessor of two evils”, or whatever, then one has the comprehension capacity of a turnip.
“As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.”
Reason.com has posed its questionnaire concerning the upcoming election to a variety of folk. Here are my answers:
1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?
I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson, now, although I was ready to vote for Virgil Goode a couple of weeks ago, because of the antepartum infanticide issue. Well, since millions of “pro-life” Christians are quite willing to vote for Romney, who is effectively pro-choice, then no one can really say anything against a pro-life Christian who is voting for Gary Johnson. I’m unsure how committed he is to non-interventionism, while I’m pretty sure that Goode is solidly opposed to the “War on Terror.” On the other hand, Goode is clearly insane when it comes to that police state-creating initiative popularly known as the “War on Drugs.” I care not one whit for narcotics, and advise anyone who considers using them to “just say no.” But the “War on Drugs” is not about ending drug use. It is, rather, the gov’t's way to implement the legal and logisitical framework for martial law.
Free Trade is also another major issue where G. Johnson is superior to Goode. The Constitution Party incredibly believes that free trade leads to socialism, and so they oppose it vociferously. This means that Constitution Party candidates are in reality in favor of government control of people’s purchasing decisions. Just like Mitt “I’m a buffoon when it comes to economics” Romney.
2a. Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including such things as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
It’s really hard to say. Romney has a bit of the rhetoric on his side, but his China-bashing shows he has very little understanding of the free market. Obama is a thorough moron on the subject. If one could trust a candidate’s rhetoric, I’d say that Romney is better, but one must remember that Romney thought that the government forcing people to purchase health insurance (which his Massachussetts health care plan did) was a “free market solution” to the “problem” of people not having health insurace (regardless whether or not they actually needed it.) AND Romney thinks that trade is a zero-sum game. The man’s a buffoon. He’ll get into office, and try the same Keynesian nonsense that George “I had to violate free market principles in order save the free market” Bush did, resulting in more monetary inflation (which will, at some point, turn into price inflation with a vengeance), more regulation, lower production of goods and services, and a lower quality of life for any and everyone who does not work in an industry favored by the FedGov.
2b. Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
Both of them have openly stated a desire for (and in Obama’s case actually took action to effect) the power to throw American citizens in prison without a trial. What is so astounding to me is so many so-called conservatives aren’t in any way upset about this. If Romney came out and said that he believes that the FedGov has the authority to go into people’s homes without a warrant and confiscate their firearms, I would at least hope that “conservatives” would be up in arms, demanding that Romney retract that position. Well, his support for the NDAA of 2012 is actually worse than such a supposed attack on the 2nd amendment. If the president can throw you in prison without a trial, then he can take your firearms away at a whim; he can, in fact, do any variety of unConstitutional activities with impunity.
As to the social issues, Obama is openly for child-murder, Romney is secretly for it (when he says he supports the right of a woman to get an abortion for “health reasons”, that includes “mental health”, which means basically anything. If a woman feels depressed about having a baby, then she can go to the doctor and get permission to kill the child to “protect her mental health.”) Antepartum infanticide is a clear violation of the “non-aggression principle”, so it’s hypocritical for self-describe libertarians to support the heinous practice. On the other hand, the crime of murder is a state matter; Federal Authorities rarely investigate murders, and it’s better for liberty generally that murder be prosecuted by state and local authorities.
There’s no such thing as “gay marriage”, as marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union. I don’t care if two men (or two women) want to hold out the preposterous idea that they’re married to each other, what I’m opposed to is them getting the government to use violence to try to force me to say the same thing.
2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?
As I mentioned before, both loonies are in support of the NDAA of 2012, which should be a deal-breaker for anyone who considers himself a devotee of the Constitution. On the war itself, Obama is clearly Bush’s third term; if he were a Republican, then you would hear no end of praise for him from the likes of Muttonhead Limbaugh and Snotnoggin Hannity with regard to his foreign policy. This is the opposite of the economics question, in which both are approximately equally bad though Romney has better rhetoric. Obama’s 2008 anti-war rhetoric is better than Romney’s insane proposals to continue the puerile, counterproductive, stupid policy of perpetual war, but Obama never even tried to live up to his campaign rhetoric. It’s a bit ironic, but had Obama followed through with his campaign promises, then the economy would be doing quite a bit better than it is currently doing; the wars are destroying the American economy more quickly than even “Obamacare” will when it gets fully implemented.
3. Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008? Bush, Bush, and McCain. What a hideous thing to have to live down, too.
4. Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? There are various state initiatives that seek to legalize marijuana. While I oppose marijuana use, I support state governments trying to thwart the will of the Federalis in every issue that they can.
5. Reason’s libertarian motto is “Free Minds and Free Markets.” In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream? Well, when the Federal Government eventually collapses under its own weight, then the free market, at least, will become a reality posthaste. Until that time, it will grow in power whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.
He compares contemporary Americans to the Children of Israel who craved the “comfortable” slavery of Egypt to the liberty they possessed.
This is an idea I derived from an article over at lewrockwell.com. The economy is on the verge of distruction. Obama, doubling down on the economic policies of President Bush, has driven it there. If Romney/Ryan had any sort of a clue at all how the economy works, then getting them into office might result in some benefit. But Romney/Ryan are as absolutely clueless about how the economy works as Obama ever was. How can they not be, when both supported TARP? Both men think that government spending is a necessary element to economic growth. Plus, both Romney and Ryan are warmongers, so expect their administration to continue to waste resources that could be used productively.
The problem is, as the article above argued, that the narrative about these guys is that they are pro-free market, so that when they get into office and follow their pro-gov’t, anti-market policies which will inevitably fail, then the free market will get the blame for big-gov’t-style policies, and the need to “return” to big-gov’t-style policies will be loudly proclaimed.
Remember, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, since they have the same policy prescriptions for “fixing” the economy, national security, et al. If you truly want to get back to a limited government, then vote third party.