http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-25-alabama-immigration-protest_n.htm

I think it's hilarious that Ala with a 4% hispanic population, and even smaller illegal immigrant population is claiming it's the illegals responsible for all their problems. It's pretty obvious what the real motivations are there.

I love though how conservatives who claim to hate gov. intervention and to love freedom and capitalism are violating peoples' free speech to negotiate with and even give rides to illegal immigrants. The churches are upset because it means they could be doing something illegal by helping people out.

I also don't see how they can make legal contracts void between 2 fully cognizant adults.

Part of me wants to see how this plays out. What will the effects be when their racism doesn't magically fix all their problems?

6/25/2011 11:32:56 PM

There is a population of people that is not even supposed to be in this country at all.

While they make up a small percent of the population of Alabama, their presence has more than doubled in the past decade. They bring a very disproportionate amount of violent crime, drugs, and welfare-dependence with them.

And they're not supposed to do anything? Maybe they already see how states with large populations of illegals are fairing, and they want to stop the problem before it gets worse?

Quote :

""An employer can hire an undocumented worker for a week, and then refuse to pay him; the worker will have no recourse," the Rev. Scott Douglas, executive director of the ministry organization, said in a statement."

And the problem is.....?

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 8:06 AM. Reason : l]

6/26/2011 8:03:39 AM

...that the employer did not honor his contract to pay the worker? That's generally how employment functions. You don't fix the problem of hiring undocumented workers by not paying them, you fix it by not hiring them in the first place. Otherwise it amounts to something close to slave labor.

6/26/2011 11:19:23 AM

Obligatory "dey terk r jerbs!!!!!11111"

Our policy of prohibition has held back progress in Latin America, and then we say, "uhh, sorry...we don't want any of you god damn Mexicans here, and if you are here, you're not afforded any basic human rights."

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2011 1:05:56 PM

If you cannot be bothered to spell government than I cannot be bothered to read your post.

6/26/2011 1:09:27 PM

^^^^ Why not let the free market take care of it? Why are you so supportive of heavy-handed government intervention in this case...? Seems... suspicious...

6/26/2011 1:20:32 PM

Quote :

"...that the employer did not honor his contract to pay the worker? That's generally how employment functions. You don't fix the problem of hiring undocumented workers by not paying them, you fix it by not hiring them in the first place. Otherwise it amounts to something close to slave labor."

It is (mostly) the undocumented worker's fault that he got screwed. All he had to do was follow the law, and then he would have legal recourse. Except he wouldn't have needed it, because he would be in his own country.

Quote :

"^^^^ Why not let the free market take care of it? Why are you so supportive of heavy-handed government intervention in this case...? Seems... suspicious..."

Because I am not a Libertarian, and I believe in borders. Part of owning a house is having a say regarding who can come in.

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM. Reason : a]

6/26/2011 2:02:28 PM

Haha

So in your view, it's okay to be a liar if the government says it's okay? You sure do love the government.

Quote :

" First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. "

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2011 2:05:33 PM

Quote :

"So in your view, it's okay to be a liar if the government says it's okay? You sure do love the government."

I said it's "mostly" the illegal alien's fault he got screwed. And it is. What the employer did was immoral, and illegal, and he should be at fault for that.

The reason the illegal alien has no recourse is that he risks being subject to the consequences of his own law-breaking, while attempting to enforce the law on others.

"Lawbreaker A can't sue Lawbreaker B because A is also afraid of the courtroom."

The illegal wants to enforce the law on somebody else, but not be accountable himself. I have no sympathy for him.

6/26/2011 2:13:59 PM

Are you kidding...?

That's a pretty dangerous precedent you're arguing for.

Are you saying that because i might download music illegally or drive over the speed limit, i don't deserve to have my contracts enforced...?

Wow.

You realize that you're performing a lot of mental gymnastics to justify your fear of brown people who might speak spanish?

Why don't you just be honest with yourself and everyone here so we can start this discussion from the beginning and just admit you don't like to be around people who don't look like you?

Quote :

"Why not let the free market take care of it? Why are you so supportive of heavy-handed government intervention in this case...? Seems... suspicious..." Because I am not a Libertarian, and I believe in borders. Part of owning a house is having a say regarding who can come in. "

I actually mean let people give rides to whoever they want to, gives jobs to whomever they want to, and rent houses to whomever they want to. You agree that the gov should dictate these things...?

edit:
haha, i see you edited. It's ironic you feel you should have a say who comes into your house, but don't mind the gov. telling people they can't rent their house to certain people... funny...

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2011 2:22:42 PM

Quote :

"They bring a very disproportionate amount of violent crime, drugs, and welfare-dependence with them."

[citation needed]

6/26/2011 3:02:57 PM

Quote :

"Are you kidding...? That's a pretty dangerous precedent you're arguing for. Are you saying that because i might download music illegally or drive over the speed limit, i don't deserve to have my contracts enforced...? Wow."

I never said the contract shouldn't be enforced. It should be. The illegal should get paid, and then get the boot back to his third world country. On his dime.

I said I don't feel sorry that the illegal is hesitant to pursue enforcement of that contract in court. It's his fault that he's afraid to go to court.

Quote :

"[citation needed]"

Seriously?

6/26/2011 4:26:16 PM

Fucking seriously.

6/26/2011 4:33:44 PM

Quote :

"I said I don't feel sorry that the illegal is hesitant to pursue enforcement of that contract in court. It's his fault that he's afraid to go to court. "

Except in the case of this law, it's not a matter of the illegal being afraid to go to court (it's not the position of state police to enforce federal immigration laws anyway, any illegal really shouldn't have to worry about that), it's a matter of the state saying the contract isn't valid PERIOD. It's a pretty obviously immoral and unethical law, and probably unconstitutional.

^
Arizona's crime rate has been dropping across the board for the past few years, despite a 70% rise in immigration, and the illegals commit violent and property crimes at a rate lower than the legals in their income brackets. I vaguely remember seeing the do better in school than legals in their income brackets.

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2011 4:43:26 PM

Quote :

"Section 27. (a) No court of this state shall enforce the terms of, or otherwise regard as valid, any contract between a party and an alien unlawfully present in the United States, if the party had direct or constructive knowledge that the alien was unlawfully present in the United States at the time the contract was entered into, and the performance of the contract required the alien to remain unlawfully present in the United States for more than 24 hours after the time the contract was entered into or performance could not reasonably be expected to occur without such remaining. (b) This section shall not apply to a contract for lodging for one night, a contract for the purchase of food to be consumed by the alien, a contract for medical services, or a contract for transportation of the alien that is intended to facilitate the alien’s return to his or her country of origin. (c) This section shall not apply to a contract authorized by federal law."

There is the relevant portion of the bill.

6/26/2011 5:06:41 PM

where is citation?

6/26/2011 5:24:13 PM

Buried in the horse cemetery at Calumet Farm.

6/26/2011 5:29:28 PM

My church is one of the big ones protesting the law... The reverend even talked about it today in his sermon. He brought up points that you could tell made some of the rich, white folks think twice about it the whole point was really what was mentioned earlier... How are you supposed to help people out if you're constantly suspicious? How is that inviting and accepting?


This new law is really sad... Especially when you think of how it's going to affect the kids involved in all this. If most of them are US citizens, how are they going to be enrolled in school if their parents can't get them to school, can't give any form of paperwork (on the parent's part), etc? And apparently the ER is one of the few places they can leave a paper trail, iirc... but how are they going to get to the ER? (I'm not sure if ambulances are also ok.) Even if they can take the ambulance to the ER, how are they going to get home if they can't even call a cab or ride with someone they know who is a citizen? It has caused a pretty big uproar here.

6/26/2011 5:32:31 PM

Cab drivers don't have "constructive or direct" knowledge of their immigration status, therefore contracts are not void.

And medical services are explicitly exempt from that provision anyway.

http://www.leftinalabama.com/diary/7828/hb56-the-alien-bill

6/26/2011 5:38:14 PM

Quote :

"It is (mostly) the undocumented worker's fault that he got screwed. All he had to do was follow the law, and then he would have legal recourse. Except he wouldn't have needed it, because he would be in his own country."

Do you think you're somehow superior because you were born here? Your government has been fucking over people in many different countries, and all you can do is smugly sit back and say, "Sorry guys, but fuck you - wallow in the shithole that we've created for you. Should have been born white and American."

I'll say it again because it can't be overstated: drug prohibition is severely and demonstrably holding back progress in Latin America. The poor conditions in those countries are an externality of U.S. policy. We have a moral obligation to 1) repeal those laws and 2) treat those people (that are making a completely rational decision to make a better life for themselves and their family) with decency.

By your logic, you should be able to legally murder an illegal immigrant. Why not? They only have themselves to blame.

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 6:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2011 6:22:00 PM

Quote :

"Do you think you're somehow superior because you were born here? Your government has been fucking over people in many different countries, and all you can do is smugly sit back and say, "Sorry guys, but fuck you - wallow in the shithole that we've created for you. Should have been born white and American." I'll say it again because it can't be overstated: drug prohibition is severely and demonstrably holding back progress in Latin America. The poor conditions in those countries are an externality of U.S. policy. We have a moral obligation to 1) repeal those laws and 2) treat those people (that are making a completely rational decision to make a better life for themselves and their family) with decency."

1) I am for legalizing all drugs. And not in the "regulate and tax the crap out of it" sense, either. Full legalization.

2) Our war on drugs does have international consequences that are negative, and sometimes severely so.

3) However, we did not make Africa a shithole. We did not make South and Central America largely a shithole. They were like that already, and the most we can be blamed for is failing to act in ways that may have brought them out of it.

Of course illegal immigrants have made a rational decision by coming here. We don't suck. Their countries do. It's a no-brainer.

And yes, I will unapologetically say that we are superior, and not because of white skin or the money we have as a country. We have money because our worldview is superior.

Overall, regardless of how bad some parts of us are, it is our common values that have brought us that wealth in the first place. Our institutions function properly, on the whole, because our culture values honesty and has a moral distaste for lying. We loathe bribery, and generally look down on naked power-grabs. And our folks will just simply refuse to comply when something is sufficiently outrageous (usually). We see the world as knowable and worth knowing, which is a perspective that is not common in countries that are full of poverty. Thus, academic institutions, scientific inquiry, etc. never take hold there. We believe that might doesn't make right, generally.

Poor countries do not have the necessary pre-conditions that bring wealth. Even without our drug war, or other disastrous foreign policies, they would still be poor and suffering, perhaps even worse. The african countries that are even worth half a damn today are the ones that were colonized by Europe, and thus had some semblance of civilization forced on them (which I'm not arguing was right).

There is a reason that the West is what it is. By that, I mean the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. And that reason is not white skin. It's that Western culture, religion, and philosophy promoted a productive, stable, morally restrained people.

There is a reason lotto winners go back to being broke within a few years. You can't give him enough money to make him prosper, because the very traits that made him poor before the lottery will make him poor after the lottery. If you want to help him, you don't give him money, you help him change.

Bringing 3rd worlders here doesn't make them like us. It is far more likely to bring the 3rd world here than the other way around, especially as the West has become ashamed of most of its own history..

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM. Reason : l]

6/26/2011 7:22:08 PM

free markets include open borders

6/26/2011 9:50:49 PM

Quote :

"There is a population of people that is not even supposed to be in this country at all."

Whites?

6/26/2011 10:54:36 PM

I love how some people just want to give this country away to whoever sneaks in.

6/27/2011 11:15:49 AM

Quote :

"They bring a very disproportionate amount of violent crime, drugs, and welfare-dependence with them. "

Illegal immigrants cannot receive welfare, and I'd love to see something to back up the rest of your statements.

Quote :

"The african countries that are even worth half a damn today are the ones that were colonized by Europe, and thus had some semblance of civilization forced on them (which I'm not arguing was right)."

The only countries in Africa that weren't colonized by Europe were Ethiopia (eventually taken over by Italy) and Liberia, which was founded by American blacks. So all of the countries in Africa that aren't worth half a damn were colonized by Europe, too.

Quote :

"Bringing 3rd worlders here doesn't make them like us. It is far more likely to bring the 3rd world here than the other way around"

This is not in evidence with any other period of immigration to this country.

6/27/2011 11:25:18 AM

You shouldn't have to sneak in. There should be no limitations on how many people can come and go. Border security is one thing - making sure that people aren't coming with bombs/weapons/etc, but keeping people out on the basis that they "aren't one of us" is just plain wrong. It's totally contrary to what this country was founded on, and many (most?) of us are here because our families traveled here at a time when there was no official process for emigrating - you just came here and did the best that you could.

6/27/2011 11:58:04 AM

Whaddaya know, d357r0y3r and I agree on something.

6/27/2011 12:28:16 PM

You and me both. Must be a full moon.

6/27/2011 12:50:16 PM

Whaddaya know, d357r0y3r and I agree on something.

6/27/2011 12:56:39 PM

somewhat related...they took our jerbs!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/georgia-puts-probationers-to-work-in-fields-after-farmers-complain-about-immigration-crackdown/2011/06/22/AGasXWfH_story.html

The new Arizona-esque immigrant law in Georgia is resulting in massive crop harvesting shortages...that the gov is trying to cover by making probationers work the fields...except, almost all of them quit after the first day

Quote :

"It’s not going to work,” Mendez said. “No way. If I’m going to depend on the probation people, I’m never going to get the crops up"

i, too, think this immigrant hate has reached an absurd fever pitch and I find this unintended consequence quite funny...veggie prices are goin up!

6/27/2011 2:03:45 PM

Quote :

"Illegal immigrants cannot receive welfare, and I'd love to see something to back up the rest of your statements."

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Anchor babies are a magical thing. Households headed by illegal immigrants use Medicaid and food assistance at absurd rates. Legal immigrants get that and a whole lot more.

Quote :

"The only countries in Africa that weren't colonized by Europe were Ethiopia (eventually taken over by Italy) and Liberia, which was founded by American blacks. So all of the countries in Africa that aren't worth half a damn were colonized by Europe, too."

Obviously there were widely varying degrees of colonization. In general, the longer and more extensive it was, the better off the people were. Yet, many countries would consider themselves lucky if they had merely stalled after colonization was over. Regression is the theme of the century.

But then you might have to take up your case with this Liberian diplomat, who said they were behind because they "had not had the benefits of colonialism." You know, things like roads, schools and hospitals, which would not exist at all in large sections of Africa if it were not for colonization.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869053,00.html

Quote :

"This is not in evidence with any other period of immigration to this country."

You are quite right. It's not in evidence with any other period of immigration. This one is different.

In the early 1900s, they were Italians, Germans, Irish, Poles, etc. These were people that came from the same countries that the ancestors of their new country came from. Despite a lot of tension between them, they came with a lot of the same baggage and worldview.

We are supposed to be a melting pot. But everyone misunderstands that phrase. In a melting pot, the stuff thrown into it gels into one mass. That means with immigration, our culture, outlook, philosophy, etc. may change around the periphery, but on the whole we should maintain an actual national identity (not based on race, but far more substantive things).

The problem with this period of immigrants is that they don't melt.

Earlier immigrants understood this. You would never find them taking over a stadium, and booing their national team at every chance, for an example just from this week: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0626-plaschke-gold-cup-20110626,0,7072114.column

Quote :

"You shouldn't have to sneak in. There should be no limitations on how many people can come and go. Border security is one thing - making sure that people aren't coming with bombs/weapons/etc, but keeping people out on the basis that they "aren't one of us" is just plain wrong. It's totally contrary to what this country was founded on, and many (most?) of us are here because our families traveled here at a time when there was no official process for emigrating - you just came here and did the best that you could."

I'd change your last sentence - you just came here and did the best you could....at being an American. That's no longer expected.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 4:52 PM. Reason : a]

6/27/2011 4:49:05 PM

by "anchor baby" do you mean citizens per the US Constitution?

6/27/2011 5:01:08 PM

Quote :

"The problem with this period of immigrants is that they don't melt."

You need to give immigrant population at least a couple generations to "melt" into the general American landscape. Previous groups had a century to slowly spread from their ethnic enclaves where no English was spoken into the larger community. Of course the first generation, and to a lesser extent the second, are going to still hold strong feelings for their home nation. Yet they still integrated into the US. This current wave is and will do the same, but we're still early in the process.

Quote :

"i, too, think this immigrant hate has reached an absurd fever pitch and I find this unintended consequence quite funny...veggie prices are goin up!"

This is more of an issue of rebuilding an experienced labor force, and the issue can also be resolved using legal migrant labor and adjusting those quotas instead of using illegal labor.

6/27/2011 5:31:26 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Illegal immigrants cannot receive welfare, and I'd love to see something to back up the rest of your statements.""

Nope, they can't. However, their children that are born in the U.S. - "anchor babies" - can receive Medicaid, Food Stamps, and cash assistance. Food stamps and cash assistance are in the parents' names.

6/28/2011 7:49:14 AM

There are actually a lot of statistics to back up the opposite re: higher crime rates amongst illegal immigrants.

6/28/2011 9:15:50 AM

Quote :

"We are supposed to be a melting pot. But everyone misunderstands that phrase. In a melting pot, the stuff thrown into it gels into one mass. That means with immigration, our culture, outlook, philosophy, etc. may change around the periphery, but on the whole we should maintain an actual national identity (not based on race, but far more substantive things). The problem with this period of immigrants is that they don't melt. Earlier immigrants understood this. You would never find them taking over a stadium, and booing their national team at every chance, for an example just from this week: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0626-plaschke-gold-cup-20110626,0,7072114.column"

This is grossly untrue and blindingly ignorant of reality and history. I’m not sure how anyone could come to believe this outside a specific choice to be wrong or ignorant.

There are still areas of the upper midwest that speak a dialect of german because the immigrants never let go. Irish and Italians still strongly identify themselves as such in the north east (there was rampant prejudice against them from Americans— similar to your view of hispanics now— that didn’t help things), and live in neighborhoods along those lines. Have you seen the movie Gangs of New York? It’s based on this theme.

The current crop of hispanic immigrants are integrating even FASTER than these previous groups thanks to a more understanding society and technology (not to mention their hot women).

I don’t think you’ve said a single true thing in this thread so far. Your distrust of spanish immigrants seems to primarily be personal and emotional… i’m sure there is some back story there.


[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 9:35 AM. Reason : ]

6/28/2011 9:34:03 AM

Don't forget Hatteras.. Isn't it one of the only places that still speaks a little bit of old English now?

6/28/2011 10:51:53 AM

Stupid white people, why can't they learn how to speak American?

6/28/2011 11:03:50 AM

I prefer NC's take on this by instituting e-Verify.

I agree with d357r0y3r as well. The process for naturalization should be opened up and simplified. I feel like most natural born citizens couldn't pass the naturalization process if it was required of them. Why should it be so difficult. Let's capitalize on the fact that people want to move here and alleviate some of the tax burden on the rest of the citizens by increasing the population. The illegals are going to be here one way or the other.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 11:32 AM. Reason : 7 not 6]

6/28/2011 11:32:04 AM

Quote :

"I don’t think you’ve said a single true thing in this thread so far."

This is grossly untrue and ignorant of googling. Citation is buried at the horse cemetery at Calumet Farm.

Quote :

"There are still areas of the upper midwest that speak a dialect of german because the immigrants never let go. Irish and Italians still strongly identify themselves as such in the north east (there was rampant prejudice against them from Americans— similar to your view of hispanics now— that didn’t help things), and live in neighborhoods along those lines. Have you seen the movie Gangs of New York? It’s based on this theme. The current crop of hispanic immigrants are integrating even FASTER than these previous groups thanks to a more understanding society and technology (not to mention their hot women)."

Would you like to quote where I said anything about not speaking English?

In fact, when referring to what sets us apart (and makes us rich) in the West, I referred to the common elements of our worldview that had given us relatively sound governance, science, and productive, morally restrained people. Those are all-preconditions for the kind of civilization we all want to have.

Notice that I did not hate on the fact that the hispanics made sure that soccer ceremony was done in Spanish. I hate on the fact that they booed the team of the country they milk. I hate on the fact that they simply do not share the same values, ethic, or approach to the world.

Here is a similar, but smaller case:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/20/altered_state/

The Boston area is the largest contributor to migration to New Hampshire. They go to NH for a lot of reasons - lower cost of living, lower taxes, lighter regulatory environment, more gun freedom, whatever.

But immigration fundamentally changes the new place to being like the old place, if the new arrivals don't share the same values as the locals (and don't have a mind to change).

They bring MA with them, and NH will slowly, but surely, become MA-lite. And that's bad for the NH people who made it what it was, and want to keep it as it is. Immigrants have a strong tendency to turn their new home into something just like their old home. They created what they fled in the first place, and they'll do it again in the new home.

It is completely rational and right for an NH resident to want to slow the flow from MA, and to blame them when his tax burden and cost of living go up, and even moreso when his freedom goes down.

The differences in worldview are MUCH greater between barely-functioning 3rd world countries, or non-functioning ones, and the United States. Bringing them here in large numbers, with subsidies that compensate for living like they used to, will only compound the problem.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 11:56 AM. Reason : a]

6/28/2011 11:53:47 AM

Immigrants shouldn't get welfare, but neither should citizens. Yes, I know that the mainstream view holds that humans are contemptuous beings that would never help their fellow man without being forced to. I don't believe it. People do help others, and if the government wasn't taking so much from them, they'd have a lot more to give.

Charity is always more efficient than government appropriation.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 12:27 PM. Reason : sorry guys, too much agreement with me in this thread, it was time to break it up]

6/28/2011 12:09:58 PM

^^But why, in your opinion, do the people of NH have some sort of right to keep NH from changing? Being there first? That's a shitty reason, especially in this country given our not so good (putting it extremely mildly) history. I'm all for private property rights and keeping out undesirables, but fearing cultural change is not a good reason to bar people entry into a place when there is no evidence that they will do actual physical harm to the place or the people there.

6/28/2011 12:45:19 PM

Quote :

"^^But why, in your opinion, do the people of NH have some sort of right to keep NH from changing? Being there first? That's a shitty reason, especially in this country given our not so good (putting it extremely mildly) history. I'm all for private property rights and keeping out undesirables, but fearing cultural change is not a good reason to bar people entry into a place when there is no evidence that they will do actual physical harm to the place or the people there."

I'm a little confused. Did you just ask a question without calling me a racist? Does not compute.

In short, NH residents have no right to keep the Massholes out. They don't have the right to restrict travel among the States. That's why I didn't say that they are right to keep them out, but they are right to want to do so. And they're right to complain about it.

The only thing they could do is send a brochure to all new residents, saying: "Welcome to NH. Now don't turn it into what you just fled. Thanks."

Culture is not neutral when it comes to freedom and prosperity. "Fearing cultural change" is perfectly valid when that cultural change will diminish your freedom and prosperity.

This goes back to earlier in the thread - I believe in borders. I'm mostly libertarian, but I understand that freedom can only exist among a people that value it, and have the worldview foundations to maintain it. A majority of the human population does not have that foundation. A world-wide democracy would be death to freedom and prosperity because of that. If it would be death to those ideals if we all voted on a world scale for one government, why be so eager to bring all of the world here to screw up ours?

6/28/2011 1:00:28 PM

Quote :

"If it would be death to those ideals if we all voted on a world scale for one government, why be so eager to bring all of the world here to screw up ours?"

Big imaginary lines and government is different than smaller imaginary lines and government?

6/28/2011 1:35:31 PM

Quote :

"This goes back to earlier in the thread - I believe in borders. I'm mostly libertarian, but I understand that freedom can only exist among a people that value it, and have the worldview foundations to maintain it. A majority of the human population does not have that foundation. A world-wide democracy would be death to freedom and prosperity because of that. If it would be death to those ideals if we all voted on a world scale for one government, why be so eager to bring all of the world here to screw up ours?"

But...Americans don't value freedom. There are millions of people incarcerated in this country for drug use. The TSA is groping 95 year old ladies with cancer. Cops are beating people up that try to film them. A banking cartel is robbing the nation of its purchasing power, and no one seems to care. It's illegal to cultivate/drink raw milk. It's illegal to work for less than 7.25 an hour. Failing enterprises get bailed out, successful enterprises get told to kick rocks.

The list goes on, and you probably agree on most of these issues, but it makes an important point: if people here have such a robust respect for freedom in this country, why is that not reflected in our politicians? Why are both parties so intent on using government as a way to enforce values?

It seems to me that you've created this mythical, founding-era American that respects personal liberty, but that's anything but commonplace today. Most Americans are some brand of authoritarian.

6/28/2011 1:47:50 PM

Quote :

"Big imaginary lines and government is different than smaller imaginary lines and government?"

Yes. Those big imaginary lines include people who are nothing short of hostile to both civilization and freedom. A world-wide vote for a world government would be disastrous. Those smaller imaginary lines can be limited to places where those two things are somewhat possible to maintain. This is evidenced by the fact that we maintain significantly more freedom here than elsewhere in the world. Our small imaginary line has been pretty effective, in a relative sense.

Quote :

"But...Americans don't value freedom. There are millions of people incarcerated in this country for drug use. The TSA is groping 95 year old ladies with cancer. Cops are beating people up that try to film them. A banking cartel is robbing the nation of its purchasing power, and no one seems to care. It's illegal to cultivate/drink raw milk. It's illegal to work for less than 7.25 an hour. Failing enterprises get bailed out, successful enterprises get told to kick rocks. The list goes on, and you probably agree on most of these issues, but it makes an important point: if people here have such a robust respect for freedom in this country, why is that not reflected in our politicians? Why are both parties so intent on using government as a way to enforce values? It seems to me that you've created this mythical, founding-era American that respects personal liberty, but that's anything but commonplace today. Most Americans are some brand of authoritarian."

You are right that I'm with you on those issues, and in recognizing that most Americans are some brand of authoritarian. And I certainly don't think we're alright. But we're still 1000% better off than most, especially compared to non-Western nations.

Yet, even with so many draconian, or just plain stupid, laws that violate our rights and stunt our prosperity, most Americans have some small sense of the notion of liberty. It's decreasing by the day, and that's worrisome. It doesn't help that people from cultures who have never valued such things are now here.

Our institutions are functional. We don't require overt bribes at every bit of red-tape (just quite a few). We still have a worldview that supports the pursuit of knowledge (except it's usually intellectual in-breeding, and funded by a monopoly). We still value, and sometimes even reward, excellence (except when it's not PC). These things are simply not the case in 3rd world countries. Not even close.

I don't have a lot of hope for what the next 50 years hold. The trend lines have been heading in the wrong direction for a while, even without illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is a symptom that exacerbates the effects of the true disease, but is not the disease itself.

6/28/2011 3:51:31 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Those big imaginary lines include people who are nothing short of hostile to both civilization and freedom. A world-wide vote for a world government would be disastrous. Those smaller imaginary lines can be limited to places where those two things are somewhat possible to maintain. This is evidenced by the fact that we maintain significantly more freedom here than elsewhere in the world. Our small imaginary line has been pretty effective, in a relative sense."

But wait, there are smaller imaginary lines than ours which are way less effective at maintaining freedom. Size and ability to maintain freedom do not appear to be dependent in any way.

And if there is such a thing as "too many people to be free" then fuck freedom. I don't like the idea that someone born on the arbitrarily wrong side of an arbitrary line doesn't deserve the same freedom.

Quote :

"diatribe about how things are followed by: I don't have a lot of hope for what the next 50 years hold."

This sentiment has been repeated for thousands of years. Somehow we made it.

6/28/2011 4:01:10 PM

Quote :

"But wait, there are smaller imaginary lines than ours which are way less effective at maintaining freedom. Size and ability to maintain freedom do not appear to be dependent in any way. And if there is such a thing as "too many people to be free" then fuck freedom. I don't like the idea that someone born on the arbitrarily wrong side of an arbitrary line doesn't deserve the same freedom."

It's not about the size of the lines - it's about who is within them. There are necessary cultural, philosophical, etc. foundations for liberty and prosperity to exist. I'm not sure how many times I've said that. If you draw lines that involve a majority of the people not being willing or able to function in civilization, then you won't have civilization. So if you are within a people capable of sustaining civilization, you need to draw a line around yourselves.

Quote :

"This sentiment has been repeated for thousands of years. Somehow we made it."

Wait a minute, who is this "we" that has made it thousands of years without their societies collapsing?

By the way, I'm not predicting the end of America in 50 years. I just don't see any of hope for the same kind of progress we had last century.

6/28/2011 4:18:06 PM

Quote :

"It's not about the size of the lines - it's about who is within them. There are necessary cultural, philosophical, etc. foundations for liberty and prosperity to exist. I'm not sure how many times I've said that. If you draw lines that involve a majority of the people not being willing or able to function in civilization, then you won't have civilization."

Perhaps, but I think you make those so called foundations a lot more complex than they really are. There are entire civilizations that have gone from a caste-based, absolute monarchy to robust democracy in four decades or less. Millions of individuals who came from the supposedly backwards hinterlands to the United States have easily integrated into American society with the same thirst for liberty and prosperity, perhaps even more so, than US citizens.

Besides, this doesn't apply to those from Latin and South America. These are nations whose cultural heritage comes from the same Greco-Roman base that the United States emerged from. Many have a tradition of democracy, and even when they were ruled by strongmen, their own thirst for liberty drove them to dispose of their dictators.

6/28/2011 4:46:36 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps, but I think you make those so called foundations a lot more complex than they really are. There are entire civilizations that have gone from a caste-based, absolute monarchy to robust democracy in four decades or less. Millions of individuals who came from the supposedly backwards hinterlands to the United States have easily integrated into American society with the same thirst for liberty and prosperity, perhaps even more so, than US citizens."

Those backward people came and desired integration. They saw the superiority of the American way, or hated their own former governments, and took to it. Neither is the case for a big part of our current immigrants.

Those backward people wouldn't boo the U.S. soccer team.

It's not about whether people can establish a democratic republic. It's whether they can keep it for more than a generation or two, and prosper under it. Those examples are much harder to come by.

Quote :

"Besides, this doesn't apply to those from Latin and South America. These are nations whose cultural heritage comes from the same Greco-Roman base that the United States emerged from. Many have a tradition of democracy, and even when they were ruled by strongmen, their own thirst for liberty drove them to dispose of their dictators."

It's not even about form of government. I obviously prefer a representative democracy, but a government and its tyranny will ultimately be a reflection of the people. The early American West had almost no government, and was fine. England had a strong monarchy for a long time, and yet the King's power was restricted, and individual rights upheld pretty well.

Democracy or dictatorship doesn't matter all that much. It's the people's capacity for self-government and productivity that will determine the size and scope of government, regardless of form.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 5:11 PM. Reason : a]

6/28/2011 5:10:29 PM