If you understand, things are as they are.
If you do not understand, things are as they are.
Gensha, Zen Master
Image of the Day
Mandatory Voting: Another Assault on Liberty
Facebook Corner
(FEE). Freedom of movement is a basic liberty that governments should respect and protect, including movement across national boundaries.
I am not surprised that the anti-immigrant authoritarians as usual are out in force to spam free market portals like Cato Institute, Reason, and FEE. The economic evidence in support of liberalized immigration is compelling. Restrictions on migrations are intrinsically a form of protectionism, which restricts economic growth at the expense of the standard of living of the American consumer.
How many people would move here if there were completely open borders? How much would those people contribute to the government vs. consume from the government? You may not like the fact that there's a welfare state, but the fact is, it does exist, and open borders would put huge strain on government spending.
This is disingenuous crap; Why have you not moved to another country? For many of us it means uncertain economic prospects elsewhere, we are leaving behind friends, family, our home/property, our past, and culture. The fact is during the Great Recession there was actually reverse migration. You aren't going to have unlimited immigration for fundamental issues of supply and demand. Whereas a growing population does provide long-term market opportunities, in the short term, employment opportunities can be highly competitive. Immigrants are likely to be drawn to where jobs are more plentiful and may be more mobile. The fact is that with the exception of certain ethnic discrimination (e.g., Asians), the US had a fairly open immigration system until the early 1920's. My own French-Canadian ancestors migrated to New England during the Gilded Age.
Open borders results in no borders. No borders,no country.This is among the many reasons I am not a libertarian.
"Closed borders" is a violation of basic human rights. Border restrictions, tyrannical government. This is among the many reasons I am not a Statist.
You can't have both open borders and a welfare state. That's just suicide.
Don't give a retarded twist on Friedman's position. For one thing, new immigrants are usually restricted from welfare state benefits. Friedman was fine with unrestricted immigration so long as it remained "illegal".
(continuing yesterday's thread on the death penalty, which in one thread took on another discussion of Romans 13, which many interpret as a call for blind allegiance to civil authories)
Yeah, I've had trouble with Paul here many times. It seems on the surface that he is saying that all authority is divinely ordained, but surely that doesn't mean that everything that every dictator does is divinely ordained. People may only reach authority through God, but it's pointless to say that because we still must judge them by their authoritative actions. If they do evil, then they are indeed a terror to the good and not vice versa.
Well, there are other libertarians who have commented on Romans 13 (e.g., the Lew Rockwell portal). Paul here is really addressing personal behavior and implicitly recognizes free will. And government, being composed of fallible human beings, can also choose evil. Even if you read Romans 13 literally, it is clear that the authority of government is contingent on punishing evildoers--he explicitly says that legitimate civil authority is not a terror for those who do good. Christ and many martyrs were not executed by the State for doing "evil", were not engaging in deliberate suicide. John the Baptist was executed for questioning King Herod's marriage to his brother's wife; could you imagine former President Clinton reinstating Primae Noctis?
I think Paul here was engaging in hyperbole, not unlike Jesus (e.g., "turn the other cheek"). He was not making a case for ruler infallibility; he was simply arguing that sinful behavior has consequences, including potential punishment by local authorities. At the same time he starts the chapter by pointing out God is the highest authority; we know God's commandments and any attempt by rulers to subvert them is illegitimate. Paul, like Jesus, does not want his message to be sidetracked by mundane sociopolitical considerations; he wants the people to focus on compliance with God's law. If rulers were God's surrogate, there would be no need for a commandment beyond "obey your ruler".
Choose Life: Vaida Was the Right Choice
Kimberly Henderson is a Sumter, SC native. I was in junior high, Little League, and Boy Scouts at the area air force base, and my baby sister was born there. My first federal government manager (at the EPA Chicago region) was also a Sumter native.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Townhall |
John Denver, "The Eagle and the Hawk". I instantly loved this tune the first time I heard it on a Denver hits compilation. I like all of Denver's hit performances, but also in my handful of favorites: "Annie's Song", "Looking for Space", "I Want To Live", and "Perhaps Love".
