Author Topic: Hello Socialism!  (Read 42348 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2006, 01:37:33 PM »
So, this article you found also observes an anarchist/libertarian distinction?

I have never before heard of this NAP, or this focus on the initiation of aggression.  Can you give me some examples of governmental activity violating NAP and/or initiating aggression?

Would help me to understand what you mean,

fistful
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2006, 01:42:54 PM »
Quote from: jfruser
...Since men are not angels, ...
...let's not put them in charge of a $2.7 trillion budget, millions of obedient soldiers and thousands of nukes.

 Look, jfruser, market anarchism is fully aware that "men are not angels". Since we agree on that, which will be the most peaceful and prosperous society: one in which a few corrupt and imperfect men command millions of soldiers, trillions of dollars and thousands of deadly weapons perched all over the globe,...or,...one in which each imperfect man governs himself, subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents?

Quote
...immanentize the eschaton ...
Anarchy isn't a  system, plan or scheme; it is the absence of one, defaulting to a natural economic order. I do not claim that it will be heavenly.  Smiley

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2006, 02:02:24 PM »
Quote from: fistful
So, this article you found also observes an anarchist/libertarian distinction?
To the extent that the "libertarian" advocates a state of any size, he is a "statist" and therefore approves of violence to accomplish various political ends.

Quote
I have never before heard of this NAP, or this focus on the initiation of aggression.  Can you give me some examples of governmental activity violating NAP and/or initiating aggression?
You earn money. The government demands a percentage of it (that they can change at will). If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life. The initiation is the initial demand for part of your money.

 You enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells you his marijuana for your dollars. The state initiates aggression by prohibiting and punishing this otherwise peaceful transaction.

 Maybe you have children. You want them taught those things important to you. The state takes a portion of your money and forces your children to attend their school in which only certain things are taught. If you homeschool or private school, you still have to pay to educate other people's children. If you don't have children, you have to pay to educate others' children, as well. If you don't you will be punished.

 You own a restaurant or hotel. You only want certain types of customers. The state tells you that you have to accept any type that wants service and punishes you if you disobey. The initiation is when they interfere with your administration of your private property

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2006, 06:14:48 PM »
Quote from: mercedesrules
 which will be the most peaceful and prosperous society: one in which a few corrupt and imperfect men command millions of soldiers, trillions of dollars and thousands of deadly weapons perched all over the globe,...or,...one in which each imperfect man governs himself, subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents?
But your anarchic world will default to the first option in short order.  How else do you explain our current "statist" world, unless you're saying that govt's just dropped down from Heaven to screw up our lives.

Quote
Anarchy isn't a  system, plan or scheme; it is the absence of one, defaulting to a natural economic order. I do not claim that it will be heavenly.  Smiley
And a natural order is what we have now.  Freedom is not normal or natural; it must be maintained, and it cannot be without some system, plan or scheme which involves govt.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2006, 07:44:04 PM »
Thanks, these are interesting examples.  The first deals with taxation, which is necessary for government.  I have tried to explain, below, why I don't believe taxation is an initiation of agression.  The middle two are about things which are not inherent to government, so they can't help us discuss whether all governments are, by definition, really violent agressors.  I have not made up my mind on drug legalization, and I would prefer to remove government funding from schools, at least at the federal level.  I definitely oppose truancy laws, but they can't be used to argue against govt., as they are not inherent to it.  In other words, to oppose truancy laws is not to oppose govt, just an improper use of it.  The last is the same as the middle two examples, but is a point in which I heartily agree.  Equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws violate the personal property rights of business-owners.  

Quote
You earn money. The government demands a percentage of it (that they can change at will). If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life. The initiation is the initial demand for part of your money.
I earn money.  My neighbors and I have decided to dedicate a percentage (that we can change at will, through representatives we change at will) of our earnings to the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.  If I do not pay the percentage my neighbors and I have agreed on, they will take my money, property, liberty or, potentially, life. The initiation is my violation of rules duly agreed on, and taking advantage of govt's protection of my life, lib, property, while not paying for my share.  

My options are to obey the law, suffer the consequences, change the law, move to a different jurisdiction or a combination of the four.  I would disagree with any law to prohibit people from taking their life, liberty and property elsewhere if they so choose, and forming an anarchist state with their own property, outside the boundaries of any government.  

Quote
You enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells you his marijuana for your dollars. The state initiates aggression by prohibiting and punishing this otherwise peaceful transaction.
I enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells me his marijuana for my dollars. My neighbors initiate aggression by prohibiting and punishing this peaceful transaction which they have deemed a danger to them.  

I don't know if this really addresses the topic of the validity of government.  We can talk of which laws are proper once we conclude whether there should be laws at all.  In this case, it has been decided that any use or sale of marijuana is aggression against the community and/or against specific persons.  Whether this decision has been rightly made is not something I have made up my mind about.  You said earlier that the man living in anarchy would be "subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents."  Well, so is the man living under government, the difference being the force of law.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

mr.v.

  • New Member
  • Posts: 19
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2006, 09:29:34 PM »
Quote
If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life.
RIIIIGHT, I forgot how many tax evaders we slaughtered last year...

Quote
Maybe you have children. You want them taught those things important to you. The state takes a portion of your money and forces your children to attend their school in which only certain things are taught...
I always love this argument because it really highlights how crazy some libertarians can get. You live in a SOCIETY. You don't live in the middle of a desert surrounded by endless uninhabited lands that you survive off of and then some black helicopter comes once a year and steals money from you.

You drive on roads not paved by you (unless you work for the MTA), in cars not built by you (unless you work for say GM). You breath air that we all have to share and water that we all have to drink. You eat food not made by you unless you're a farmer, in which case you sell some food to get other types of food and money for whatever else you like.

Our society works because people rely on each other everyday for things. A skilled business person doesn't make money in a vacuum. He relies on workers to manufature his/her ideas, educated employees to help manage and market, farmers to produce food, industry to make the building he/she sits in, potable water so he can drink without disease. People can be as entrepreneurial as they like, if they're hunting deer in hopes of surviving, it's not going to matter if you've figured out the next great IPod accessory.

So yeah, sometimes to make that society function so that people can use it to make money off of and live a life of luxury, we all have to pay taxes to educate someone else's kids so the system can keep on running. That's socialism. It's NOT communism. Most socialists don't argue for communism. That's that little Strawman you like to build up and burn in effigy. Most socialists don't argue that we should all be equal and we should have no wealth stratification, they argue that those at the top have to pay higher taxes because their generation of wealth required a society to build.

Higher taxes don't mean that they aren't wealthier, it just means they have to pay more back into the system off which they made more money.

Equal pay regardless of work is communism and is not an idea supported by most socialists. If socialists supported that, they would be communists now wouldn't they?

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2006, 08:34:08 AM »
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: mercedesrules
 which will be the most peaceful and prosperous society: one in which a few corrupt and imperfect men command millions of soldiers, trillions of dollars and thousands of deadly weapons perched all over the globe,...or,...one in which each imperfect man governs himself, subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents?
But your anarchic world will default to the first option in short order.  How else do you explain our current "statist" world, unless you're saying that govt's just dropped down from Heaven to screw up our lives.
Invading, conquering and taxing rulers were a slight improvement over invading, conquering and slaughtering barbarians. Maybe, using reason and persuasion, man can make one or more further improvements.

Quote
Quote
Anarchy isn't a  system, plan or scheme; it is the absence of one, defaulting to a natural economic order. I do not claim that it will be heavenly.  Smiley
And a natural order is what we have now.  Freedom is not normal or natural; it must be maintained, and it cannot be without some system, plan or scheme which involves govt.
Actually, I agree that this is the anarchy. I agree that there must be "government". I disagree that there must be a "state". Government could be voluntary; a state is coercive. All of my jawing is my attempt to maintain liberty. The state can usually only do what is accepted by the majority.

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2006, 09:03:43 AM »
Quote from: fistful
Thanks, these are interesting examples.  The first deals with taxation, which is necessary for government.
For a state. People can govern themselves through the use of mutual promises: "I won't punch you as long as you don't punch me."

Quote
Quote
You earn money. The government demands a percentage of it (that they can change at will). If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life. The initiation is the initial demand for part of your money.
I earn money.  My neighbors and I have decided to dedicate a percentage (that we can change at will, through representatives we change at will) of our earnings to the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.  If I do not pay the percentage my neighbors and I have agreed on, they will take my money, property, liberty or, potentially, life. The initiation is my violation of rules duly agreed on, and taking advantage of govt's protection of my life, lib, property, while not paying for my share.
Unless every single "neighbor" is happy with the arrangement, unhappy ones are oppressed. I am unhappy with the arrangement. Therefore, I am oppressed. You are smart so you know that changing representatives does virtually no good in altering taxes...or anything else. 72% of soldiers in Iraq want to come home but where are any congressional dissenters?

 Majority rule is coercion. Let's say you are walking down the street and two thugs approach you and say, "We vote that you must give us 40% of the money in your wallet."  

Quote
My options are to obey the law, suffer the consequences, change the law, move to a different jurisdiction or a combination of the four.  I would disagree with any law to prohibit people from taking their life, liberty and property elsewhere if they so choose, and forming an anarchist state with their own property, outside the boundaries of any government.
Even the founders said that an oppressive government could be abolished.

Quote
Quote
You enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells you his marijuana for your dollars. The state initiates aggression by prohibiting and punishing this otherwise peaceful transaction.
I enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells me his marijuana for my dollars. My neighbors initiate aggression by prohibiting and punishing this peaceful transaction which they have deemed a danger to them.
Yes.  

Quote
I don't know if this really addresses the topic of the validity of government.  We can talk of which laws are proper once we conclude whether there should be laws at all.  In this case, it has been decided that any use or sale of marijuana is aggression against the community and/or against specific persons.  Whether this decision has been rightly made is not something I have made up my mind about.  You said earlier that the man living in anarchy would be "subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents."  Well, so is the man living under government, the difference being the force of law.
Eliminating force is my main philisophical goal. It would seem just for there to be a variety of places to live with different mores, etc., all on one continent, at least! I have cyber-pals literally considering Somalia due to the blanket oppression in North America. Jeeze, ol' Randy Weaver couldn't even be allowed to mind his own business in his mountain retreat without jackboot interference!

RaggedClaws

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2006, 10:42:03 AM »
Quote
Eliminating force is my main philisophical goal.
Are you trying to eliminate force from the real world, or just from your utopian philosophy?  The former is impossible, and the latter is logically necessary to your argument that anarchy is somehow preferential to our current state of affairs.  I, for one, am mightly pleased not to be living in a state of nature, thank you very much.  In my world, "anarchy" does not mean anything good.

Quote
I agree that there must be "government". I disagree that there must be a "state".
This is just petty semantics.  These words are practically synonyms and if you have substantially different meanings for them, you should share them with us so we all know what we're talking about.

RaggedClaws

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2006, 10:47:28 AM »
Quote
I have cyber-pals literally considering Somalia due to the blanket oppression in North America.
What a joke! That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day!  You and your friends are either very young, very naive, or both, to believe that living in Somalia is at all preferential to living in North America.

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,037
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2006, 12:16:34 PM »
Quote
I have cyber-pals literally considering Somalia due to the blanket oppression in North America.
Have they been to Somalia?  I haven't either, but I know they have some problems there too.  If you really think it's all peaches and cream over there just because there is abundant anarchy, go ahead and go.  I think you will find out the dreaded aggresion is still easy to find.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2006, 02:18:54 PM »
Is anyone else reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Guest

  • Guest
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2006, 05:34:43 PM »
Quote from: RaggedClaws
Quote
Eliminating force is my main philisophical goal.
Are you trying to eliminate force from the real world,
Are you trying to increase it?

 
Quote
I, for one, am mightly pleased not to be living in a state of nature, thank you very much.
Where do you live that isn't "nature"?

 
Quote
In my world, "anarchy" does not mean anything good.
I guess you are a statist, then.

Quote
I agree that there must be "government". I disagree that there must be a "state".
Quote
This is just petty semantics.  These words are practically synonyms and if you have substantially different meanings for them, you should share them with us so we all know what we're talking about.
"The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave."[/i]

"The word "government" can be used in different ways. We can speak of "self-government." The owner of a business imposes a form of government on his employees. In family, school, neighborhood association, and groups of all kinds, there is "government." "

 So, a state is the ruling agency that claims a sole right to settle all disputes in a given area...and the power to tax.

 Government is merely people agreeing to abide by rules such as, "I won't make noise until 10 am so you can sleep if you promise not to make noise after 10 pm."

RaggedClaws

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2006, 04:13:21 AM »
Quote
Are you trying to increase it [force]?
Uhhh, no.  Is this an argument of some sort?

Quote
Where do you live that isn't "nature"?
I was referring to a Hobbesian "state of nature".  Surely you know that, and you are turning to petty semantics again.

Quote
I guess you are a statist, then.
From my perspective, it's not black and white.  If it helps you sleep at night, then feel free to call me a "statist" and I'll call you a "utopian idealist with his/her head in the clouds".

Regarding your definitions of "government" and "state", let's decide on a definition from the dictionary, how about that? Instead of one from a libertarian propagandist.  

Quote from: "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law"
Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-m&nt, -v&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 : the office, authority, or function of governing
3 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
4 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
5 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b cap : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c : the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit

Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations)
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also STATE LAW b : the territory of a state
Quibbling about which is better a "state" or a "government" is just silly semantics.  If you want a group of people governed in any way at all (which you don't, I realize that), then there is both a government and a state.  The two go hand in hand.  Self-government doesn't involve a state, because it's just one person, but when we're talking about large groups of people, then by definition, they are a state if there is a government involved (in the accepted meanings of words).

jefnvk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,478
  • I'll sleep away the days and ride the nights...
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2006, 02:32:50 PM »
Gotta love this quote from the govenor:

'We have found a way, collectively, to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover...'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/04/13/mass.health.ap/index.html
I still say 'Give Detroit to Canada'

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,446
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2006, 06:01:01 PM »
In my view, todays liberals (statists) have an elevated notion about the Brotherhood of Man.  That all we have to do to get along is reason with each other.  I salute that emotional notion.  Unfortunately, it is devoid of reality or historical perspective.  Because one thinks that we are so advanced and civilized today that we can forget the lessons of history, does not make that thought anything more than chimera.

Trouble is, there are folks who just don't want to get along for whatever reason.  They are bad people; ruthless despots, dictators, tribalists, warlords etc.  The weak have forever been used by the strong.  History gives us a complete picture of that.  America over its life has not been gentle in its progress as well.  But at the same time, there has not been a nation that has counterbalanced its bad decisions with sacrifice on behalf of others as America has been.  We can argue, but there are few on the planet that have moral equivilance with Americans.  We struggle with our history, accept it, and try to make amends.  Not many other nations are known for that.  

I think the liberal notion that there are no absolutes; no right or wrong; moral nuetrality,  has fostered the loss of personal responsibility and as a result we have lost our will to do what is needed to make our Constitutional Republic work.  There have always been miscreants in politics.  There always will.  But because we have instant communication they are more obvious.  But that should cause us to be more vigilant and demand more accountability from our elected officials.  If we know what they are doing pretty much while they do it, then call them on it. Perhaps the burden on the individual citizen is as least as heavy as it has been in the past, in a different manner.  We are to blame mostly for our shortcomings as well as our successes.

Many of us have been pointing to the lack of security on our borders for years and very few in gubmint paid attention.  Now we have a problem?  Bleh, we have had the problem for decades and now it is basicaly unsolvable.  Reagan granted amnesty, but asked for enforcement of the law regarding stomping on employers who hired illegals.  It was not done!  If it had been enforced we'd not have the situation we have now.  Now another law is needed?  Hell, it's just like guns; enforce the laws that we have, don't write new ones.

Now rather than a security issue and the ability to control immigration post 9-11, its become poicitcized; who can pander to the Hispanic future voters the most and at the same time reassure them that they don't need to become American; that's ok?  Well it's bullcrap in my view.

Also in my view, as the governements south of our borders become more leftist, despotic and pandering to the weathy arristocrats, more and more will head this way.  Actually this is not bad because the bulk of those people will be the best of the gene pool of the downtrodden, just like the folks that built our country starting a couple hundred years ago.  A man and woman who will walk for weeks through excrutiatingly dangerous terrain to make a better life for themselves certainly are to be not only admired but desired.  If they see no future where they are, they come here.  That is not a bad thing, necessarily.  They have great family values and are people of faith, mostly.  They have a history of work.  That much cannot be said for a fairly substantial number of natural born Americans.

They need to be convinced that they need to swear allegiance to America, assimilate and understand we are a nation of laws.  Part of the problem is that third worlders bring diseases such as mumps, measles, chicken pox, tb, and whatever god awful diseases.  It would be better is we set up new and many entry points, took all comers, immunized them against diseases (and start re immunizing our children as well, by the way) gave them a green card and let them carve out a piece of America's pie and work toward citizenship.  As for the millions already here, no one is to blame for that but us;  we did not demand our "leaders" embrace the problem when Reagan solved it 20 some odd years ago.  So, maybe we need to take responsibility for that and try to mitigate our non feasance by making the best of what we have rather than trying to do some new unenforceable law that will be ignored and the politicians will regal themselves with credit.  Bleh!

After much thought about it, I think we ought to grant amnesty to all who have a job, will swear allegiance to America, are willing to be immunized against communicable diseases.  Hell, they'll learn English in one generation.  To forward the lame notion that because they came here illegally they are criminals is ludicrous.  If that is so, we should be charged with aiding and abetting that crime.  I'd defy any of you to deny that if you found yourself in the conditions that these people are fleeing, that you would not do the same.  We do not need this issue to further divide us.  That would be worse, in my opinion.  We need to see that employers are following labor laws as a side issue.

As for the despots to our south?  In a couple of generations they will fall because their best will have left and those who stayed behind will finally get their fill and nature will, again, take its course.  

The criminals here will not come forward, understandably.  But when they are caught, they should be deported immedietely, no grace.  Or maybe they ought to be immpressed into work gangs securing our border.  It would create a lot of jobs for Americans to supervise them.  That tax would be well spent.

Maybe in the meantime some real patriots will step forward in our two parties and clean house of the fools and pettifoggers and pay attention to the people's business rather than the power scene and sound bites.

Sorry for the thread vear, but I've been getting a little pissed about things lately.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2006, 07:44:41 PM »
Quote from: grampster
 To forward the lame notion that because they came here illegally they are criminals is ludicrous.
grampster, this sort of non sequitur is beneath you.  Whether they're here to work or sell drugs, they are knowingly trespassing on our soil, and violating other laws.  This makes them criminals.  Come on, we're not talking about traffic tickets here.  You are too good a contributor to this board to make a fool of yourself like this.


Quote
Now another law is needed?  Hell, it's just like guns; enforce the laws that we have, don't write new ones.
Actually, we need to repeal a law that contributes to the problem.  Namely, the fourteenth amendment which, among other unintended consequences, grants citizenship by birth on American soil.  THIS is ludicrous.  


Quote
Actually this is not bad because the bulk of those people will be the best of the gene pool of the downtrodden, just like the folks that built our country starting a couple hundred years ago.  A man and woman who will walk for weeks through excrutiatingly dangerous terrain to make a better life for themselves certainly are to be not only admired but desired.  If they see no future where they are, they come here.  That is not a bad thing, necessarily.  They have great family values and are people of faith, mostly.  They have a history of work.  That much cannot be said for a fairly substantial number of natural born Americans.
A couple hundred?  Try four hundred.

I don't claim to know much about illegal aliens, but I know they don't all fit this generalization of yours.  They don't necessarily face any hardship or danger in getting here, and they don't all want to work.  And no matter how hard-working or honest they may be, we can't take everybody who shows up.  For one thing, there is a national culture to be preserved, which involves more than a work ethic.  That is part of a bigger problem in that if enough immigrants from any country flow in willy-nilly, we will soon cease to be America.

You want more Americans with a work ethic?  Try this.  Cut welfare and other entitlements to a mere skeleton of their current obesity, and then see how many Americans will suddenly do those jobs that we supposedly need illegals for.  And if we actually do something to stop this flow of illegals, watch how the wages for such jobs increase to draw more legal labor.  Prices will go up?  Well, then taxes and regulation will have to go down to compensate.

Quote
They need to be convinced that they need to swear allegiance to America, assimilate and understand we are a nation of laws.
And entering legally is a good start.

Quote
As for the millions already here, no one is to blame for that but us;  we did not demand our "leaders" embrace the problem when Reagan solved it 20 some odd years ago.  So, maybe we need to take responsibility for that and try to mitigate our non feasance by making the best of what we have rather than trying to do some new unenforceable law that will be ignored and the politicians will regal themselves with credit.
The people who knowingly trespassed into a foreign country and broke our laws can't be blamed?  Sheesh.  Reagan solved the problem?  How?  And regale has two e's.


Quote
After much thought about it, I think we ought to grant amnesty to all who have a job, will swear allegiance to America, are willing to be immunized against communicable diseases.
Much thought?  Think some more, about this for example.  Are you talking about amnesty or citizenship?  It would hardly do to ask a foreign national to "swear allegiance to America."  


Quote
I'd defy any of you to deny that if you found yourself in the conditions that these people are fleeing, that you would not do the same.
I might, but I'd be a criminal and I'd be wrong.  What I would do doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter if they're being sacrificed by the thousands at Tenochtitlan, they have no right to cross our border.  None.  I have no right to go there, and they have no right to come here.  They can come over here when they are willing to follow our laws.  I'm not angry at the people who are here for a better opportunity, but if they break the law, they should pay the price.  I know it's hard down there, and I can understand why they come, but we must control our border.  


Quote
The criminals here will not come forward, understandably.  But when they are caught, they should be deported immedietely, no grace.  Or maybe they ought to be immpressed into work gangs securing our border.  It would create a lot of jobs for Americans to supervise them.  That tax would be well spent.
What smokest thou, good sir?  We've got enough trouble securing the border as it is.  


grampster, please tell me this is a result of some pain meds.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,446
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #42 on: April 15, 2006, 12:16:56 PM »
My dear Clenched Abundance,

     APS is a place where we can exchange thoughts and ideas in a civil fashion.  That was what I was doing, putting out a thought to be reflected upon.  Will everyone agree?  I'm possitive they won't.  My thoughts may be simplistic, but at least the idea is workable and, once again, demonstrates the munificence of the American people.  In my mind, sneaking across the border with the notion of bettering my family's lot by leaving everything I know behind to work hard in an alien land is a bit different than some goblin that robs a party store.  I also understand some come for darker reasons.

    It's not the pills and cough, ahem herbs tend to mellow one out.  I told you at the end of my piece that I was pissed.  I am also not a moral relativist.  Please re-read the first half of my comments.  It is immutable that action causes reaction.  Fortunately we can harness that and it should be made to work for our collective benefit.

     I've been preoccupied with this illegal immigration reality since my father started sounding the alarm about it clear back in the 60's and 70's.  He was very prescient in that regard, and it rubbed off on me.  My father was the grandson of immigrants. There is more wrong with illegal immigration than meets the eye.  Not the least of which is the communicable disease problem.  Since we have ceased to immunize our children, illegals are bringing on the resurgence of old diseases, to say nothing of new ones we have never seen before in America.  No one, of course, is saying anything about that.

Believe me when I say I've been talking about IE with a lot of people, including government for a long time.  No one has given a rat's ass till lately.  Unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn now.  So, what do we do?  Actually, the better question is what is realistic?  What reflects American values the most.

There are choices, many of which are being bandied about, are not realistic.  You are not going to be able to round up and deport X millions of people.  You just can't physically do that.  The logistics are impossible.  And they are not bugs to be swept off the carpet.  They are people.

Have they come here by invitation?  I think so.  Why?  Because we've never been serious about stopping them!  America is the promised land, Fistful, and our borders are porous.  That is an open invitation in my mind. Lot's of folks dont seem to care once they're here, especially those who see the opportunity to exploit them with hard work and niggardly pay.  So in the end the exploiters harm all of us.  I lump many politicians into this group, by the way.  They are a major part of the problem and they are blaming us!  They say Americans won't work for the pay.  No *expletive deleted*it!  It's not the job, it is the pay.  How easy it is to blackmail with slave wages to some poor sap that worries every day the police are going to kick down their door and take them away.  (None of my comments should be construed to excuse the behavior of some IE's that strip our system for all it's freebies, by the way)

There are only two answers to the invitation:  Seal our borders or don't.  That is the first thing that needs to be done.  Pick one!  Then do what is necessary to make it work.  Focus on it with a fierce determination. My thoughts are just the other side of the coin of those who want to build a 30 foot wall around America.  I just frankly think we need the quality of people that are, for the most part, risking all to come here.  They just need to understand the rules.  We haven't done much positive in that regard either.

Once we have made a national decision about our borders, then, and only then, should be begin to decide what needs to be done about those that are here.  That is important, but a secondary issue in my mind.

More later.  Gotta go to another hockey game with the g'kids.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #43 on: April 15, 2006, 01:22:04 PM »
Quote
My dear Clenched Abundance,
Ah, now that is poetic.

Quote
APS is a place where we can exchange thoughts and ideas in a civil fashion.  That was what I was doing, putting out a thought to be reflected upon.  Will everyone agree?  I'm possitive they won't.
Yes, yes, we are obviously disagreeing, so I don't know why you bring it up.   Was I uncivil?  I think I was as complimentary as I could be, as I do find your posts are often very thoughtful.  


Quote
at least the idea is workable
Workable for what end?  That of drowning America in non-Americans until we become Mexico North?  We cannot assimilate as many people as would flood in here in far greater numbers if we throw open the gates in the fashion you suggest.  And to pretend that crime is OK because the responsible parties are looking the other way is just not tenable.  


I never suggested you were a moral relativist, so please withdraw the implication.  Nor did I say that we can deport all illegals, though I am sure we could clear out most of them, given enough time and proper enforcement, a fence, perhaps, or what-have-you.  


Quote
And they are not bugs to be swept off the carpet.  They are people.
Can the histrionics, please.  I have said nothing that dehumanizes these people in the least.  To the contrary, I hold them to the same standard to which I would be held.  I might cross the border illegally, were I in their shoes, but I sure wouldn't pretend I had a right to do so.  

This problem will continue so long as Mexico chooses to remain corrupt and poor.  Their plight is not America's fault.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

doczinn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,205
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #44 on: April 15, 2006, 02:08:46 PM »
Quote
Quote
My dear Clenched Abundance,
Ah, now that is poetic.
Brings to mind a different kind of clenching....
D. R. ZINN

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #45 on: April 15, 2006, 02:15:33 PM »
well, yes, but I'm trying to spin it.  Smiley
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #46 on: April 15, 2006, 05:26:59 PM »
Quote from: fistful
Quote
at least the idea is workable
Workable for what end?  That of drowning America in non-Americans until we become Mexico North?  We cannot assimilate as many people as would flood in here in far greater numbers if we throw open the gates in the fashion you suggest.  And to pretend that crime is OK because the responsible parties are looking the other way is just not tenable.
Amazing.  This could have been written in the 1920s about the "Yellow Peril" or the 1930s about German Jews or about almost anyone else at any other time.  It is the stock-in-trade of Nativists.
Tarring people as "criminals" is simply an emotive rhetorical trick.  It wont solve the problem.  It will only make it worse.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,446
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2006, 06:44:44 PM »
Back from the game...we lost, but the Griffins finished the season as the #1 seed going into the playoffs.

I never could figger the quote thingy, so I'll just muddle.

Yes, yes you were civil and I took no umbrage nor was/am I smutting back.  I was just explaining why I'm putting out the thoughts that I am having, and I continue to marvel at the opportunity to do so.  I love the internet and especially places like APS, THR, TFL and the folks one gets to meet, like yourself, that we can spar about things.  I wanted to say that and I was not clear.  SWMBO often says that I'm the only person who can talk for long periods of time and no one has a clue what I mean.  That's why I was a successful cop and salesman.  People cooperated with me just to shut me up so I would go away.  Anyhoo....
 
My bug comment was not directed at you, sir.  Just a general comment after listening to people verbalize their emotions on this matter on the radio, tv and in print.  I don't frankly think that people who are here illegally have any right to any tax funded benefits like schools, welfare, or food stamps.  Neither should free medical care be provided unless there is a life threatening situation.  I am as offended as anyone at how illegals drag down the system and I'm particularly displeased to see all the hispanic signs around.  I'm also pretty offended that our polititcians are pandering to this group of people who have no legal standing, demanding things and are waiving foreign flags.  

 But the fact remains that they are here and could be a valuable asset to our American culture.  Maybe, as a result, that culture might change just a tad.  But that's all it should; just a tad.  Hopefully better; remember many of the hispanics are people of faith, are family oriented and they have a culture of work.  Perhaps we ought to think about how this group of folks could be a benefit to our country.  The danger is not the hispanics but the damn fool liberals and Leftists who's idea it was to promote all the socialist programs and the porous borders that attracts IE's to some extent.  (I know, let's deport the the libs)  So maybe we need to rather be less bellicose about sending the rascals back,  and we should rather be more bellicose about demanding assimilation.

I'm not even sure we could even close our borders effectively.  So maybe we need to quadruple the cash flow to the INS and really make them extremely effective at finding out who is coming across and weeding them out.  Make them rather subject themselves to scrutiny rather than paying their life savings to be dumped in the desert with no water.  Maybe we need an American Peace Corp where high school graduates could elect border security as a volunteer service for 2 or 4 or more years and throw in some trade school edumacation to take up their free time.  Lord knows most of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when they get out of HS.

The context of my moral relativist comment was intended to indicate that my maunderings are not those of a liberal, who generally are.  Not a swipe at you.  I surprise myself from time to time that I actually consider solutions to problems that are less than the scortched earth policies that the leftists assign to us on the right.
I sometimes find my closest right wing fanatic friends looking at me with horror on their faces.  Ah, well my liberal friends usually spot me to free alcohol when I get wonky like this.  I'll take their drinks.

Actually, my preferred solution would be that the folks south of the border would redirect the energy they spend trying to get here into cleaning up their own houses.  I did hear a comment the other day that some educated Mexicans are sounding the alarm over America's plan to offer citizenship opportunity to IE's.  They see that as the beginning of a potential extreme blow to their economy.  Gasp!  They won't be Mexicanos anymore...they will turn into gringo's.  I heard a guy on the radio today who said we ought to annex Mexico.  Their government is so corrupt now that all we'd have to do is pay them off and they'd hand the country over.  Hell it would be just like the Old West again only with good weather.  Then we baby boomers could all move south and you wouldn't have to listen to us tell you that we're "on a fixed income" anymore.  

One of the major things that needs to occur in our country is that we need to remember our motto:  E Pluribus Unum.  Out of the many, one.  We need to stomp out this multicultural dreck that has infected our country and start remembering and celebrating our unity and nationhood.  He who wants to come here needs to become an American.  That means assimilation and that notion has to be shouted from the rooftops.  It ought to be demanded of those who come here.  If the Repubican Party had any backbone, they should be shouting the liberal statists down on this point.

Well, I'm not going to solve any of this.  Unfortunately we will leave that up to Teddy Kennedy and Hillary.  It just feels good to get some of this of my mind.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,387
  • My prepositions are on/in
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2006, 07:11:48 PM »
Quote
Tarring people as "criminals" is simply an emotive rhetorical trick.
How's "nativist" for an emotive rhetorical trick?  On the off chance that you are in earnest with this comment, I must reply that those who break the law tar themselves.  This is a simple matter of fact.  If one breaks the law intentionally and repeatedly, one is a criminal.  Is there some other definition of the word?  

The following was written for grampster, it applies even more so to Rabbi, who's judgement I have come to respect.

Quote
this sort of non sequitur is beneath you.  Whether they're here to work or sell drugs, they are knowingly trespassing on our soil, and violating other laws.  This makes them criminals.  Come on, we're not talking about traffic tickets here.  You are too good a contributor to this board to make a fool of yourself like this.
Edited to add:  Except that Rabbi's above comment was not a non-sequitur, just obviously, hugely incorrect.  But I still hope you're teasing me, Rabbi.
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Hello Socialism!
« Reply #49 on: April 16, 2006, 07:34:28 AM »
By your definition of "criminal" probably everyone on this board is a criminal.  Such a definition ceases to have any meaning other than as a rhetorical tool.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.