France orders illegal Roma immigrants expelled: Sounds like the US..

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The border zealots should really focus their intention on who is really voting for these programs (And hint: it isn't those rascally Mexicans). It isn't the non-voting illegal immigrant who works outside the tyrannous laws and taxation. Instead of focusing on the cause they focus on the symptom. Continuing to do this will result in failure, just as if trying to kill a virus you don't attack your white blood cells. By this I mean liberty. There wouldn't be a need for underground workers, if there were no programs there to cause it. Therefore, attacking immigrants (we can eliminate the boorish and logically inconsistent argument that people use here -- they are against illegals, but not immigrants because the latter is following the law, but then will rail against the former for economic reasons, but not the latter clearly showing their hypocrisy and dissonance.) is the easy path. I don't hear the rallying cries to deport all San Franciscans or everyone who lives in Seattle, or Baltimore, or NYC, or Miami, or Madison, etc. The fact is Americans mostly want what we have now. I find it curious and odd the border zealots aren't actually going after the majority who 'votes' themselves stolen goods. In fact, country bumpkins aren't any better seeing as how Republicans and Democrats alike love to disperse stolen goods amongst themselves on their own personal preferences.

Here again, we run into a foundational philosophical contradiction. (This happens when your entire philosophical outlook is irrevocably reduced to a piece of paper which isn't even a philosophical work, as it is a short list of Federal Government powers) This is how we get a dichotomy where someone is for one thing at a 'State' level, and not for it at a 'Federal' level, never realizing the two entities are the same thing, merely differing distances apart. Granted, distance does matter a lot, but I fail to see how that matters in coming to a conclusion on legitimate Government powers, or in other words, which liberties you deem us cows to let have. We also come to a point where those who follow the mantra ends justify the means, clash with those of us who believe the means must comport to your ends. History if anything is a beacon here. You can't reach peace by violence. The market and liberty is peace. Property is peace. The border zealots would have us believe that the property stolen from us, to get this, stop us from getting stolen from will be used objectively pursuant to one goal, presuming that the Government can even fulfill this goal in the first place. It is like the War on Terror. The border zealots would have us believe like the War zealots that stealing your property will necessarily result in a given conclusion -- Peace through War, or alternatively Liberty through Tyranny.

So, I must repeat again, we have to fight against tyranny, not enable it. Of course libertarians are not consequentialists. That road leads to all sorts of things, but of course your good intentions mean everything. Luckily, Austrianism and libertarianism is grounded on a firm notion of Human Action, and self-ownership. If good intentions meant anything then our Government would be the greatest thing since slice bread, but I will have to disagree with that conclusion.

And now the socialists will proclaim I am against borders, because I am against State-borders. It is as if the socialists would say I am against food when I want the State out of the food producing business.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

"Of Course This Land Is Dangerous,
All Of The Animals Are Capably Murderous.
One Must Eat The Other Who Runs Free Before Him,
Put Them Right Into His Mouth."

 

[osan]

I've heard this shameless racist shit thousands of times before, it doesn't impress me much. Go ahead and side with a tyrant like Sarkozy, who openly pisses on democracy in the UN.

Very entertaining. I've sided with nobody. All I did was offer a few observations and you go apoplectic.

Seriously, you should work on your reading comprehension - or you honesty. One or both are lousy.

 

[osan]

Democracy should be pissed on.

Hear hear.

 

[dannno]

No, there is no national culture. Cultures vary based on the people in an area. New England will always have a different culture than the Bible Belt. If you think you can force your cultural bullshit down the throats of everyone else, you're a statist tool.

Paleoconservativism is no more reasonable than neoconservatism. It's the same fascist crap.

Seriously, this country doesn't belong to white Christians, and white Christians have no basis for shoving their culture down anybody's throat. It goes completely against what our country originally stood for. You can't live in a free society where there is tyranny inflicted to have a certain culture. You either live in a free society or you don't.

 

[dannno]

The border zealots should really focus their intention on who is really voting for these programs (And hint: it isn't those rascally Mexicans). It isn't the non-voting illegal immigrant who works outside the tyrannous laws and taxation. Instead of focusing on the cause they focus on the symptom. Continuing to do this will result in failure, just as if trying to kill a virus you don't attack your white blood cells. By this I mean liberty. There wouldn't be a need for underground workers, if there were no programs there to cause it. Therefore, attacking immigrants (we can eliminate the boorish and logically inconsistent argument that people use here -- they are against illegals, but not immigrants because the latter is following the law, but then will rail against the former for economic reasons, but not the latter clearly showing their hypocrisy and dissonance.) is the easy path. I don't hear the rallying cries to deport all San Franciscans or everyone who lives in Seattle, or Baltimore, or NYC, or Miami, or Madison, etc. The fact is Americans mostly want what we have now. I find it curious and odd the border zealots aren't actually going after the majority who 'votes' themselves stolen goods. In fact, country bumpkins aren't any better seeing as how Republicans and Democrats alike love to disperse stolen goods amongst themselves on their own personal preferences.

Here again, we run into a foundational philosophical contradiction. (This happens when your entire philosophical outlook is irrevocably reduced to a piece of paper which isn't even a philosophical work, as it is a short list of Federal Government powers) This is how we get a dichotomy where someone is for one thing at a 'State' level, and not for it at a 'Federal' level, never realizing the two entities are the same thing, merely differing distances apart. Granted, distance does matter a lot, but I fail to see how that matters in coming to a conclusion on legitimate Government powers, or in other words, which liberties you deem us cows to let have. We also come to a point where those who follow the mantra ends justify the means, clash with those of us who believe the means must comport to your ends. History if anything is a beacon here. You can't reach peace by violence. The market and liberty is peace. Property is peace. The border zealots would have us believe that the property stolen from us, to get this, stop us from getting stolen from will be used objectively pursuant to one goal, presuming that the Government can even fulfill this goal in the first place. It is like the War on Terror. The border zealots would have us believe like the War zealots that stealing your property will necessarily result in a given conclusion -- Peace through War, or alternatively Liberty through Tyranny.

So, I must repeat again, we have to fight against tyranny, not enable it. Of course libertarians are not consequentialists. That road leads to all sorts of things, but of course your good intentions mean everything. Luckily, Austrianism and libertarianism is grounded on a firm notion of Human Action, and self-ownership. If good intentions meant anything then our Government would be the greatest thing since slice bread, but I will have to disagree with that conclusion.

And now the socialists will proclaim I am against borders, because I am against State-borders. It is as if the socialists would say I am against food when I want the State out of the food producing business.

Another good post.. I don't understand how people think more tyranny is going to some how lead to freedom.

 

[AxisMundi]

Illegals do the work for cheap, the prices of goods fall. We can use the now freed resources for more jobs. Do I really have to spell it out on rpf??? What the fuck happened to these god damn forums, they're flooded with liberal neocons!!!

You exhibit part of the Supply Side Economic Theory mentality, a neocon ideology.

A failed economic theory, doomed from the start, proven Failed since it was first put into practice during the Reagen era.

As with assuming investors will invest where it does the economy the most good (as opposed to where it makes them the most money, which is good and proper), assuming that companies will charge less for a product simply because they use dirt cheap illegal labor is also an invalid theory.

Companies will charge for their products based on market prices. They will readily use illegal workers to increase their profit margin.

 

[AxisMundi]

Ladies and gentlemen...

The idea of "culture preservation" is simply a distraction. It is invalid for the purpose of discussing the concerns of Illegal Aliens within our borders. America is, and has always been, the veritable melting pot, a wonderful and wondrous cacophony of at times widely different cultures all coming together to harmoniously create the "American Culture".

Baseball and Apple Pie were not American inventions, ladies and gentlemen.

However, part of being a United States citizen, naturally born or naturalized, is to recognize that there are indeed certain "glues" which hold this Nation together, one of those being a common language so that we, as fellow citizens, can communicate.

What is more important in the Illegal Alien Question are...

Substandard working and/or housing conditions for Illegals. IA's (Illegal Aliens simply because I have arthritic and I'm getting sick of typing it out) do not have the same resources and protections that US Citizens enjoy. They cannot go to a labor board if they are fired, they cannot Unionize (an American right even if I don't necessarily agree with Unions), they cannot complain about dangerous working conditions or required long hours, they simply have no legal recourse. They cannot complain to authorities for peeling lead paint in their rented homes, or for rent far above market prices either. Lack of water service, electricity, broken sewage systems, leaking roofs... the list goes on. To complain is to face deportation, so IA's do not complain and are taken advantage of by greedy landlords and employers.

IA's also face concerns in sneaking into this country at the hands of dishonest, greedy "brokers". People die in shipping containers, in the open desert, wedged into tiny compartments built into the oddest of places never meant for human habitation. IA's pay outrageous prices, and sometimes never stop paying. The underground sex slave trade is an ongoing concern in this Nation, and see women, and girls, effectively sold into slavery to pay their way, where they face beatings, rape, and disease, if not death, by their "owner's" clients. Those "lucky" enough not to become enslaved in such a manner may still face what equates to slavery at the hands of "coyotes" who will forcibly take a portion of the IA's wages in payment for their entry into the country. And the IA simply has no recourse of action. Pay the extortion money, or be reported and deported.

One can argue about legitimate concerns. Tax revenue absorbed by IA's, the criminal elements which sneak in with honest people, jobs, no interest in citizenship and/or the difficulties inherent in our current outdated and overworked Immigration and Naturalization system, etc.

But one of the main issues that is too often overlooked is simply the humanitarian concerns IA's face.

 

[dannno]

You exhibit part of the Supply Side Economic Theory mentality, a neocon ideology.

A failed economic theory, doomed from the start, proven Failed since it was first put into practice during the Reagen era.

As with assuming investors will invest where it does the economy the most good (as opposed to where it makes them the most money, which is good and proper), assuming that companies will charge less for a product simply because they use dirt cheap illegal labor is also an invalid theory.

Companies will charge for their products based on market prices. They will readily use illegal workers to increase their profit margin.

LOL, you have very little practical knowledge of how economics works. If one company starts using cheaper labor, then they can hire more labor, lower their bids and get more jobs... hire MORE labor, get more bids, more jobs, more profit. If the lack of quality of work from the cheaper labor is of less value than the reduction in cost then they will have advantage over their competitors. The other companies then start using the cheaper labor and lower their prices as well. Lower prices benefit everybody, but the problem with illegal labor is that they are not on a level playing field since they often get paid under the table, or have multiple jobs making low enough income with fake work credentials at each job so they don't end up paying taxes anyway. If not for the tax difference, then nobody could legitimately claim that anybody is taking anyone else's job.

Secondly, nobody here advocates supply side economics that Reagan had, we advocates free markets. Ron Paul had a bumper sticker in his '88 campaign that said "We're Bush'd of Reaganomics! Ron Paul '88".

The fact is, in a free market whatever is most profitable SHOULD be invested in so that the PROFIT MARGINS GO DOWN. If there is a cell phone company making a $100 profit margin off a particular phone and that is much higher than other cell phones, then by investing in that company or another similar company to make a similar product you end up producing more and lowering the cost, and thus lowering the profit margin. Whatever is most profitable is what is most in demand by the market, and that is what should be produced.

 

[AxisMundi]

LOL, you have very little practical knowledge of how economics works. If one company starts using cheaper labor, then they can hire more labor, lower their bids and get more jobs... hire MORE labor, get more bids, more jobs, more profit. If the lack of quality of work from the cheaper labor is of less value than the reduction in cost then they will have advantage over their competitors. The other companies then start using the cheaper labor and lower their prices as well. Lower prices benefit everybody, but the problem with illegal labor is that they are not on a level playing field since they often get paid under the table, or have multiple jobs making low enough income with fake work credentials at each job so they don't end up paying taxes anyway. If not for the tax difference, then nobody could legitimately claim that anybody is taking anyone else's job.

Secondly, nobody here advocates supply side economics that Reagan had, we advocates free markets. Ron Paul had a bumper sticker in his '88 campaign that said "We're Bush'd of Reaganomics! Ron Paul '88".

The fact is, in a free market whatever is most profitable SHOULD be invested in so that the PROFIT MARGINS GO DOWN. If there is a cell phone company making a $100 profit margin off a particular phone and that is much higher than other cell phones, then by investing in that company or another similar company to make a similar product you end up producing more and lowering the cost, and thus lowering the profit margin. Whatever is most profitable is what is most in demand by the market, and that is what should be produced.

My economic knowledge is more than up to the task of debating differing economic theories, and their effectiveness. Your cell phone example is simply nonsensical, however it is graphed out. Companies are in the business of making profit, and will do whatever they can to keep the profit margin as large as humanly possible.

My economic knowledge is also based in reality as well, plus the experiences of nearly a half-century of life. Your own comments illustrate how illegal labor has not lowered prices at all.

Also, part of the supply side economic theory promoted by the GOP includes the idea of a Free-For-All market, as opposed to the regulated, healthy, and prosperous Free Markets of the past. The removal of certain controls, starting with the Clinton Administration (a noble idea FUBARed, attempting to permit lower income families to obtain housing loans without putting guards in place) and accelerated by the Bush43 Administration across the market has driven this country nearly into the ditch.

 

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

Illegals do the work for cheap, the prices of goods fall. We can use the now freed resources for more jobs. Do I really have to spell it out on rpf??? What the fuck happened to these god damn forums, they're flooded with liberal neocons!!!

Great, so we can give everyone a job for peanuts like we are the third world, tell me when that happens, because prices haven't fallen yet, they have gone up, and not everyone is employed at a shit wage, in fact, unemployment is at 10%. You are talking about economics in your anarchistic imaginationland, not in the real world. In the real world, as the supply of labor increases, real wages fall, and those who are willing to work for less(the illegals), take the jobs from Americans who won't work for below minimum wage. What you seem to be advocating is a rat race to the bottom, where most Americans work for slave wage, and as we import more third worlders, America becomes the third world.

 

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

We live in a fucking democracy! The word democracy doesn't always mean direct democracy. If you think pissing on a democracy is ok, then get out of these forums mr 59 posts. Why can't you trolls just get the message when you're banned???

No, we live in a Republic, not a democracy, learn the difference.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A Republic is a type of Democracy. Is voting not how the Government is determined? The whole idea of a representative is a bunch of balogne in the first place. Only you, can represent yourself (Which is how the market works!). Even Ron who is fairly close to me philosophically does not represent me. If I lived in Pelosi's district she definitely wouldn't even come close. How can you even proclaim to tell libertarians and those of differing philosophical persuasians that their so-called 'representatives' actually represent them? If people get beyond slogans and actually penetrate how things operate perhaps we may get somewhere. Even going beyond all that, all Governments are necessarily the same. They are all formed on the basis of the initiation of violence and aggression and widespread and institutionalized theft.

Hell, name one Government where there wasn't law? Communists had laws. Nazi's had laws. King George had laws. Even anarchies have laws! There are always laws, either written or unwritten. Rule of law is not a type of system of Governance whatsoever, as it is inherent in human society. Society itself is not a product of Government and is itself a totally seperate concept. Proponents of Montisque and Hobbes blur these distinctions and furthermore are philosophically muddled and incoherent. Also, anarchy is not without rulers. It is without arbitrary rulers (And let me assure you Divine Right and Social Contract are arbitrary as hell). This nuanced distinction of course is missed by JBS. One leaves this with a feeling that JBS isn't actually going for a scholarly work and understanding of liberty and Government. This is of course not surprising.

 

[Kludge]

A republic is always a democracy though a democracy isn't always a republic.

A Republic is a representative democracy, especially true now that senators are directly elected.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

 

[dannno]

Great, so we can give everyone a job for peanuts like we are the third world, tell me when that happens, because prices haven't fallen yet, they have gone up, and not everyone is employed at a shit wage, in fact, unemployment is at 10%. You are talking about economics in your anarchistic imaginationland, not in the real world. In the real world, as the supply of labor increases, real wages fall, and those who are willing to work for less(the illegals), take the jobs from Americans who won't work for below minimum wage. What you seem to be advocating is a rat race to the bottom, where most Americans work for slave wage, and as we import more third worlders, America becomes the third world.

It's not that illegals are willing to work for less as much as it is that they often get paid under the table or using false documentation that allows them to fudge total income and such.

They have to pay a citizen $17/hour just to equal the illegal's $10/hour wage under the table..

Also it's not really fair to talk about prices going up when we are supporting a worldwide military empire and a corporate welfare state with our central bank.

 

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

All those White Libertarians, lol, how exactly did "Whites" vote in the last election?

Libertarians are disproportionately white to the actual population, whereas "Latinos" are disproportionately not libertarian to their population.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf

 

[Kludge]

Libertarians are disproportionately white to the actual population, whereas "Latinos" are disproportionately not libertarian to their population.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf

Still, the vast majority of Whites voted for either McCain or Obama in the 2008 election.

 

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

It's not that illegals are willing to work for less as much as it is that they often get paid under the table or using false documentation that allows them to fudge total income and such.

They have to pay a citizen $17/hour just to equal the illegal's $10/hour wage under the table..

Also it's not really fair to talk about prices going up when we are supporting a worldwide military empire and a corporate welfare state with our central bank.

You are just playing word games Danno, illegals do work for less, you are just obfuscating the issue.

And it is totally fair to talk about higher prices, central banking, the military empire and mass immigration all in one, because they are all supported by the establishment, and negatively effect the American people. Americans get the shaft, as prices rise due to inflation, and working class people lose jobs to legal and illegal immigrants who work for less and drive down wages.

 

[Adolfo Mena Gonzalez]

Still, the vast majority of Whites voted for either McCain or Obama in the 2008 election.

The majority of whites voted for McCain, but the majority support smaller government, and are far more sympathetic to small government ideals than non-whites.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The majority of whites voted for McCain, but the majority support smaller government, and are far more sympathetic to small government ideals than non-whites.

You have to be kidding me right?