Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I [Heart] Ron Paul (Though Not on Immigration or the Gold Standard)
Last night, like a less-energetic Dave Weigel, I watched the GOP presidential debate. Over at Pajamas Medias, I give a thumbs up to the debating skills of Dr. No, a.k.a. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). A snippet:
Until the GOP starts actively discussing a foreign policy that goes beyond either doubling down in Iraq or dreaming of bombing Iran, they aren't yet offering voters what they need to hear; a reason to turn off Survivor and embrace the party that brought us the last six sorry years of foreign adventurism and domestic budget terrorism. The GOP might want to listen more closely to what Ron Paul is actually saying about this issue.
|5.4.07 @ 1:14PM|#
After watching much of that debate, I couldn't help but wish
that Ron Paul had the speaking skills and presidential looks of
Harry Browne.
Unfortunately, he looks and sounds like the doctor or small
businessman who heads your local Rotary Club. If you want a
fire-breathing libertarian on foreign policy, then look to Bumper
Hornberger.
thoreau|5.4.07 @ 1:30PM|#
He needs to slow down his speech just a bit, smile no matter what he says, express a bit of optimism, and get some Flonase to take care of that slightly nasal tone in his voice.
|5.4.07 @ 1:30PM|#
Ron Paul makes a great voice of reason on most issues (though
like Nick his thoughts on the gold standard make me shake my head,
a little bit less on immigration, because he's arguing more about
the welfare state than actual evil immigrants)
But yeah, his substance vs. style method confuses and irritates the
average american and the MSM. So despite his improving status in
impromptu polls, we're not gonna be saying "Welcome President
Paul"
No Jeff Flake on the other hand, that's almost presidential
material there. Or Butch Otter.
highnumber|5.4.07 @ 1:34PM|#
The WSJ had a piece on the candidates' MySpace pages with an
interesting bit about Dr Paul's friends.
Perfectly useless link to stub only because the article is of
course available to subscribers only:
Here
Err, translate that to
Yoda speak for me, would you...hmmm?
|5.4.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Ack! Did someone say Hornberger?! Please, dear god, no!
Sadly, Google is unable to find references to the ill will that
Hornberger sowed here in the VA LP.
|5.4.07 @ 1:35PM|#
thoreau,
you're absolutely right. Though I'm sure he wanted to get in as
much information as possible, talking fast and high pitch is not
appealing. He should take a page from the Mitt Romney book of
speaking and slow down, calm down and speak in a way that
kindergarteners can understand. Presidents don't make quick
movements, they're slow, decisive and authoritative (unfortunately
that's about the only qualifications nowadays)
|5.4.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Look folks, no one imagines our boy is going to surf into the oval office on a wave of popular support. All we're hoping for, is that he is able to drop a few grains of sand in the gears of the GOP machine. It's all about the substance. Style might get him another percentage point, but it won't move the message.
thoreau|5.4.07 @ 1:38PM|#
He also didn't look directly at the camera, while many other
candidates did. He should have made a point of finding out which
cameras would be on him, and then he should have calmly and
confidently delivered a soundbite on how great it will be if we do
what he's proposing.
And the soundbite should be delivered S-L-O-W-L-Y and in a slightly
lower voice.
Intense people with an intellectual approach can be excellent
doctors. I, for one, want the focused person who's clearly
intelligent. But they don't do well on TV.
thoreau|5.4.07 @ 1:39PM|#
It's all about the substance. Style might get him another
percentage point, but it won't move the message.
Wrong. Substance gets you nods of approval from people who already
agree. Style gets other people to listen, and thereby gets a few
more people to agree.
William R|5.4.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Paul is right about immigration, Gillepsie is wrong.
Then Nick writes "Then they went on to extol the virtues of
free markets in health care, education, and even goods and
services! (Alas, none of them seemed to think that people as much
as bananas should be able to cross borders with minimal
restrictions.) All these things sounded good.
Well why not a free market in money. Let the market decide what our
currency is going to be. Even Walter Williams Trustee Emeritus of
the Reason Foundation is on record saying that people should be
able to write contracts in gold. A real free market would have gold
and silver freely circulating in the economy.
As for people freely crossing borders. Some romatic pipe dream
nonsense. Stuff of blithering idiots. . Ask the Europeans if they
want Muslims to be able to freely cross over from Africa or the
middle east. Entire cultures and civilizations collapse with this
idiotic talk.
The free movement of people across borders is as insane as the
NeoCons thinking that the Islamic world could or would adapt to
Jeffersonian democracy. NeoLibertarian. A new phrase I think to
call the fools that believe in the free movement of people. Lets
just import 40 million muslims and plant them in fly over country
.. Nebraska, Iowa and Oklahoma. Lets celebrate diversity and
multiculturalism.
|5.4.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Good catch, Urkobold. I was laughing at the "spade" iconography
above, wondering if anyone other than MikeP caught the
message.
We accept too readily the idea that our candidates must be smooth,
like used car salesmen. Honestly, I think TV has totally misaligned
the values and skills upon which we focus. I mean, I'd dislike Bush
not one whit less if he looked (and acted) presidential and
polished.
|5.4.07 @ 2:01PM|#
And what exactly is wrong with the gold standard? What is the
problem with having a currency that actually holds its value so
people can count on the value of their savings over time?
And if you took the time to study Dr. Paul's actual proposals you'd
know that what he wants is to remove legal obstacles (like capital
gains taxes that result from the reduction in value of the paper
currency vs gold) that prevent the remonitization of gold. He wants
to start with a 2 currency system and let people choose -
constantly rising prices with paper money, or stable (even
lowering) prices with gold. Let the free market decide what money
is, not the government.
Is that what you object to? The idea that people should actually be
allowed to choose what they will use as money?
Ron Paul 2008 - the only way!
|5.4.07 @ 2:07PM|#
PL,
I don't know what used car salesmen you're talking to, but the
whole idea that a confident, authoritative president resembles a
fast talking, hard driving, confusion causing used car salesmen is
way off the mark. The American public doesn't listen to the
platitudes as much as they judge by appearance. What America ends
up with is either a father figure (Reagan, Kennedy, Rooselvelt,
Bush Senior) or an average joe like guy(GWB, L. Johnson, Carter).
Appearance of competence is about all we get.
And TV may emphasize style, but it hasn't been a total loss. We did
get Ronald Reagan, one of the better presidents, and that was in
the age of TV. And atleast with TV, people like Tom Delay can't
dodge public opinion by sweeping their misdoings under the chamber
floor.
Brian|5.4.07 @ 2:08PM|#
We're not really judging politicians on their speaking voices are we? Reason readers, please give me some hope. The White House went, aurally and foreign-policy-wise, from a smooth-talking bullshitter to a complete retard, so I doubt speaking styles has a lot to do with it.
Russ 2000|5.4.07 @ 2:09PM|#
I couldn't help but wish that Ron Paul had the speaking
skills and presidential looks of Harry Browne.
If those traits actually matter, then please explain George W
Bush's ascension to the position as The GOP Presidential
Candidate.
|5.4.07 @ 2:10PM|#
From the WSJ article:
Other candidates have chosen more unusual friends. Republican
Congressman Ron Paul from Texas highlights Jennifer Bothell, a
31-year-old manager trainee at a Subway sandwich store in Apollo,
Pa. On her MySpace page, Ms. Bothell describes herself as a hippie
and lists the late Grateful Dead singer Jerry Garcia as her
hero.
Jennifer Bothell's MySpace page
Ms. Bothell posts a photo of herself taken at a gathering of Jerry
Garcia fans. "See my smile? Need I say more?" reads a comment with
the photo. "I enjoy acting bizarre just to make people ask
questions," she writes in the "about me" section of her page.
Regarding Rep. Paul, she says: "Obviously, I don't agree with him
on every topic, but I agree with him on a lot of issues," like his
stance against the war in Iraq and his opposition to raising
taxes.
Mr. Paul's campaign isn't monitoring his 9,753 friends' pages for
questionable content and hasn't actively chosen top friends for Mr.
Paul, who considers himself a libertarian, says spokesman Jesse
Benton. Of Ms. Bothell, he adds, "It sounds like she's someone who
really enjoys her own personal liberty, and we think that anybody
who enjoys their personal liberty is going to find a candidate in
Ron Paul that they can really vote for."
(Yes, I actually have a subscription.)
William R|5.4.07 @ 2:13PM|#
How
Gold Was Money--How Gold Could Be Money Again
Nothing radical . Just a free market in money
|5.4.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Michael,
The gold standard, if given competition with other forms of
currency, would die anyway. People's labor and products are worth
far more than all the gold in the world could be valued. The value
of gold as a commodity could not rise high enough to back the money
its supposed to, which would either lead to a shortfall of capital
or a drop of confidence on the currency's value. The government's
promise that America's productivity is worth confidence in its
currency is a far better policy, though it leads to excessive use
of America's productivity for its own projects. A competing system
based on certain businesses confidence in America's productivity is
a far better idea IMO, as business's aren't in the business to
spend, but to make money and if properly governed, would probably
produce a far stabler system of money.
Greggery Pecary|5.4.07 @ 2:20PM|#
let me get this straight
free movement of goods across our borders is good
but free movement of people (especially poor people) is bad?
"have your cake and eat it too" anyone?
|5.4.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Nick Gillespie doesn't heart Ron Paul's Gold Standard? Presumably it's because he thinks our currency should be backed by leather jackets...
|5.4.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Well, at least Gillespie isn't claiming that all libertarians must agree with his permissive attitudes towards abortion and gay marriage this time.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.4.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Well, West Hollywood is pretty much on the leather
standard.
Lost beat me to it, Ron Paul is not against immigration. His point
is that we cannot have open immigration so long as we remain a
welfare state. That is a whole 'nother enchilada altogether and
there is some validity to the claim.
And you'll notice that those on the left who claim that immigrants
come for jobs not welfare get all bristly when anybody suggests
cutting off ANY social welfare benefits for non-citizens.
I'm still an open borders kind of guy myself but I don't buy the
myth that immigration comes problem free.
William R|5.4.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Lost_In_Translation | May 4, 2007, 2:14pm | #
Writes:The gold standard, if given competition with other
forms of currency, would die anyway. People's labor and products
are worth far more than all the gold in the world could be
valued.
No
Shortage of Gold
|5.4.07 @ 2:45PM|#
William,
Whatever the benefits of a gold standard, I still feel that a
limited commodity is not the appropriate median of exchange of
goods and services in current society. Granted, I am not an expert
on the intricacies of gold supply and stability, but I just can't
see it being the best way.
|5.4.07 @ 2:47PM|#
free movement of goods across our borders is good
but free movement of people (especially poor people) is
bad?
Regardless where one stands on this issue, am I the only one that
sees how ridiculous this "argument" is?
|5.4.07 @ 2:48PM|#
I fail to grasp the intense ♥ that some people have for the gold
standard. I can understand how they might find government backed
money a bad idea: indeed, I agree that a gold standard is better
than what goes on now.
Nonetheless, under a free banking system, it is unlikely that gold
will wind up being the ultimate backing value for money. It is much
more likely to be a basket of historically stable commodities, very
little of which can be carried away in your pocket.
Also, it is not clear to me that Nick is stridently against the
gold standard -- only that he is against a libertarian-leaning
candidate running on it and therefore sounding as whack as the type
of person who usually argues for the gold standard in public.
|5.4.07 @ 2:52PM|#
What I don't understand is why the gold standard is considered whacky. It really wasn't very long ago we had it. Didn't Nixon get rid of it mainly to use fiat money to fund the Viet Nam war? Someone help me here, please!
|5.4.07 @ 2:53PM|#
What's wrong with a gold standard, is paper any better? Gold is one of the oldest forms of money, and since it is a commodity, it's price is determined by the market, not a central bank. The market then determines how much gold it takes to purchase goods. Basically we need an inflation-proof, commodity-backed currency, and gold was determined long ago to be the best commodity for this. And the days of carrying gold in your pocket are long over. We already have paper receipts, and online digital gold accounts.
|5.4.07 @ 2:55PM|#
but free movement of people (especially poor people) is
bad?
No. The argument is that free movement of poor people stresses the
existing bloated social safety net. So either reduce the costs/size
of the safety net or manage the size of the subscriber base.
Not that agree with that argument, but I understand it.
Brian|5.4.07 @ 3:07PM|#
free movement of goods across our borders is good
but free movement of people (especially poor people) is
bad?
Not a good argument at all. Goods coming across borders is trade,
which could also stand to be reformed to an extent. People coming
illegally (which is really what Paul is against) across the borders
at an alarming rate is not trade, it's an economic security
issue.
|5.4.07 @ 3:09PM|#
What I don't understand is why the gold standard is
considered whacky.
It's whacky because it's not on anyone's agenda and sounds like it
comes from left field.
Didn't Nixon get rid of it mainly to use fiat money to fund the
Viet Nam war?
By the time it got to Nixon, there was no gold standard to speak
of. The price of gold was officially $35, and its trade as currency
or bullion was illegal. (Ever catch the gold smuggling
Hawaii 5-0 episode? Enlightening...) Even central banks
were rarely going through the fiction of trading gold amongst
themselves.
The system was entirely broken: Moving to tradable fiat money was
an improvement, and it only took a decade for the Federal Reserve
to figure out that pricing the dollar as though it's on the gold
standard anyway is better for everyone.
The lesson is clear: Governments cannot be trusted with currency
even with a commodity-backed currency. Better an actually
traded fiat currency than a fictionally traded commodity-backed
currency.
|5.4.07 @ 3:12PM|#
free movement of goods across our borders is good
but free movement of people (especially poor people) is
bad?
This is not a good argument mostly because it won't convince
anyone.
The theory of comparative advantage is difficult enough to intuit
in the realm of free trade. Adding on top of that the notion that
someone can now come to your country, get all of the
productivity advantages you have, and replace you
at your job at a lower cost -- all while making the whole of the
economy better off -- is even tougher to understand.
it's an economic security issue
See what I mean?
|5.4.07 @ 3:27PM|#
MikeP,
Thanks for the info. I disagree with this though:
...the Federal Reserve to figure out that pricing the dollar as
though it's on the gold standard anyway...
Yeah, Volker was good, but Greenspan sold us out (and Bernanke, I'm
still not sure about).
One of the problems I have with the immigration argument above, is
how anyone can compare manufactured goods with people. At that
fundamental level, the argument fails. Talk about apples and
oranges! Anyway, I admit that I fall into the Paul/Friedman camp.
The welfare state makes the immigration of millions of poorly
educated poor people an unfair burden on the taxpayer. There is
also a a lot of historical evidence that massive immigration leads
to serious social and political problems. Being a native
Californian, I have an affinity for Mexicans (especially the
women). I wish we could trade a lazy, stupid American for each
hard-working Mexican.
Scooby|5.4.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I wish we could trade a lazy, stupid American for each
hard-working Mexican.
You think Mexico or any of Central or South America would take that
trade? I'd rather have both together than just the lazy, stupid
birthplace-lottery winner. The hard-working Mexican pays for quite
a bit of the lazy American.
|5.4.07 @ 3:46PM|#
The hard-working Mexican pays for quite a bit of the lazy
American.
Bull. At ~3 children per couple, they are a net loss to the economy
for many years. Just educating three kids costs between 20 grand
and 60 grand per year. (Once again, the welfare state issue.)
Scooby|5.4.07 @ 4:11PM|#
The inflation of labor costs caused by restrictions on movement of labor would cause a lot bigger drags on the economy than the cost of putting the kids of workers through school.
|5.4.07 @ 4:20PM|#
TWC,
Lost beat me to it, Ron Paul is not against immigration. His point is that we cannot have open immigration so long as we remain a welfare state. That is a whole 'nother enchilada altogether and there is some validity to the claim.
I have read some of his writings regarding immigration, and for the
most part you are right. The problem with Paul is he doesn't
express his point very well. In this campaign, he has stated his
stance against illegal immigration but hasn't voiced if he would
open up the borders wider if the welfare state were scaled back.
Not flip-floppy, just not succinct and clear. He is also against
truly open borders with good background checks. He wants to make
gaining entry into the country equally difficult for all
immigrants.
From his campaign
website:
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Rules, waiting periods, load of bullshit. The rules are not to
figure out if the applicant is a violent criminal, but to limit the
number and type of workers allowed in the country. It is
effectively an import barrier on labor. I am all for conducting
background checks on immigrants and jailing them or kicking their
asses out for felonies or terrorist activities while here but
anything else is pure BS.
Greggery Pecary|5.4.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Educating children is an investment in our society's
future
it is not, in and of itself, indicative of a welfare state
How we actually go about executing our educational plans has
problems (many of them welfare state-esque), but those problems can
hardly be hung on immigrants who have the nerve to send their
children to school
William R|5.4.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Lost_In_Translation | May 4, 2007, 2:45pm | #
Ron Paul isn't calling for a return of a Government Gold standard.
He just wants the market to decide . Let people choose. A private
commodity based currency. The government wouldn't fix the price of
gold or silver. Banks could freely issue and mint gold back
currency and coins. They would freely circulate along with our
Federal Reserve notes. People could write contracts in gold.
This would be called Free Market Money. The government would
regulate. ie... if banks started minting coins. they'd have to be
honest. One ounce Gold coins would have to have 28grams of gold.
Gold currency would have to be 100 percent backed with gold.
|5.4.07 @ 4:28PM|#
The inflation of labor costs caused by restrictions on
movement of labor would cause a lot bigger drags on the economy
than the cost of putting the kids of workers through
school.
That depends upon whether or not one considers wage inflation as
entirely a bad thing. (I imagine I'll get attacked for this
one.)
Rules, waiting periods, load of bullshit. The rules are not to
figure out if the applicant is a violent criminal, but to limit the
number and type of workers allowed in the country. It is
effectively an import barrier on labor. I am all for conducting
background checks on immigrants and jailing them or kicking their
asses out for felonies or terrorist activities while here but
anything else is pure BS.
So you'd be fine with 200 million immigrants flooding into the US
in, say, the next five years? You don't think that might kill the
goose that laid the golden egg?
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 4:29PM|#
William R.-
No person has been "imported" to the United States or Europe since
about 1808.
|5.4.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Educating children is an investment in our society's
future
it is not, in and of itself, indicative of a welfare
state
Okay, that's funny!
How we actually go about executing our educational plans has
problems (many of them welfare state-esque), but those problems can
hardly be hung on immigrants who have the nerve to send their
children to school
I'm not hanging the problems on them. I'm saying that they
exacerbate the problems, which we really don't need. Plus, it costs
us a lot of money right now. Yeah, they'll add to the economy a
couple of decades from now, or so. That's a long time from now.
William R.|5.4.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Scooby | May 4, 2007, 4:11pm | #
The inflation of labor costs caused by restrictions on movement of
labor would cause a lot bigger drags on the economy than the cost
of putting the kids of workers through school.
nonsense . Our productivity hasn't been what it should be in
farming for example due to a flood of cheap labor from south of the
border.
|5.4.07 @ 4:37PM|#
What's up with the "birth-place lottery" argument? To be consistent, one must believe that we should confiscate any inheritance received by the children of the deceased since they just happened to win the "silver-spoon lottery."
Greggery Pecary|5.4.07 @ 4:39PM|#
You can't get there (gold standard) from here
How many US dollars are in circulation(what w/ it being the default
reserve currency for the planet and all)?
there's just not enough gold/silver in the world to do it
besides, how do we go about replacing all that fiat currency with
precious metals without trashing our nation's spot in the economic
catbird seats?
maybe an "energy standard" would work. But precious metals?
navel gazin'
Scooby|5.4.07 @ 4:42PM|#
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
- from "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Waldo Emerson
William R|5.4.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Cesar | May 4, 2007, 4:29pm | #
William R.-
No person has been "imported" to the United States or Europe since
about 1808.
Whatever Cesar. It's an example to show the idiotic nature of the
free movement of people. These so called libertarians that don't
believe in nation states and borders. Well they're not libertarians
but utopian anarchists. Let 100 million muslims emigrate to the USA
and we'll be in a civil war. Europe is rapidly moving towards a
civil war.
Scooby|5.4.07 @ 4:44PM|#
There are at least twice as many illegal immigrant workers
currently in the US as able-bodied unemployed.
Kick out the illegals, and who will pick the fruit (frame, drywall,
roof, and clean the houses; raise the kids; etc.)?
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 4:44PM|#
William R.-
This country had no quotas for migration from other countries in
the Western Hemisphere for quite a long time. The quotas Congress
placed on the eastern hemisphere in 1920 did not apply to the
western hemisphere. IIRC there were no quotas on latin Americans
until the middle of the 20th century.
But, because they didn't have to worry about being killed or
arrested when crossing the border back into Mexico, the majority of
them worked for a season on a farm and left.
|5.4.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Quite a few have already been kicked off by the 1996 Welfare
Reform.
True. I've known a few. They all found jobs (and some
self-respect).
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 4:50PM|#
*True. I've known a few. They all found jobs (and some
self-respect).*
Its probably the best thing the Gingrich Congress and Bill Clinton
ever did.
|5.4.07 @ 4:50PM|#
Kick out the illegals, and who will pick the fruit (frame,
drywall, roof, and clean the houses; raise the kids;
etc.)?
Clean your own damn house (or make your kids do it). Raise your own
kids. Mow your own lawn, or have the neighbor kid do it.
|5.4.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Its probably the best thing the Gingrich Congress and Bill
Clinton ever did.
That's faint praise! (I agree.)
William R|5.4.07 @ 4:53PM|#
I've got news for ya Cesar, the world has changed. In 1920 we had virtually no welfare state.
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 4:58PM|#
William R.-
The lack of quotas for Latin American immigrants lasted well into
the LBJ administration.
And I'd direct you (again) to the Welfare Reform Bill. Immigrants
(legal or illegal) are ineligable for TANF ('welfare'), food
stamps, or medicade.
The only two services they use are 1) emergency medical care 2)
public schools.
These are things often used by the native-born middle class in this
country, but no one wants to restrict the number of children they
can have.
If you allowed freer movement, the men who come to work on
farms/construction would be much less likely to bring their
families, as they could easily return to Latin America after the
season is over. That would significantly lower costs for both of
those services.
|5.4.07 @ 5:00PM|#
And I'd direct you (again) to the Welfare Reform Bill.
Immigrants (legal or illegal) are ineligable for TANF ('welfare'),
food stamps, or medicade.
LMFAOROTF! Yeah, that's how it really works!
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 5:02PM|#
LMFAOROTF! Yeah, that's how it really works!
TRB-
Don't you think the welfare rolls would be rising at record rates
instead of declining if that wasn't enforced?
Russ 2000|5.4.07 @ 5:05PM|#
How many US dollars are in circulation(what w/ it being the
default reserve currency for the planet and all)?
The euro is starting to chip away at the default status of US
currency.
Russ 2000|5.4.07 @ 5:08PM|#
How many posting here would LOVE to opt out of the welfare
system like illegal aliens have?
People are just jealous because Mexican immigrants have figured out
that (if they were legal) they'd have to pay into a welfare system
that can't survive long enough for them to eventually get paid when
it's their turn.
|5.4.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Oh, it's enforced--some of the time. You must understand: The type of person that works in welfare offices tends to "bend the rules" because of their bleeding heart. It happens. The declining rolls had a lot to do with a good economy, BTW. (I live in California; things may be different elsewhere. Here, a lot of government workers don't really care about following the letter of the law.)
|5.4.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Clean your own damn house (or make your kids do it). Raise
your own kids. Mow your own lawn, or have the neighbor kid do
it.
Like I said, intuitively understanding the comparative advantages
involved with immigration is difficult -- even when someone
blatantly comes out and enumerates several examples.
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 5:12PM|#
"(I live in California; things may be different elsewhere. Here,
a lot of government workers don't really care about following the
letter of the law.)"
Well, my only experience is in Virginia and its one of the least
generous state welfare systems in the nation.
But there doesn't seem to a be a shortage of immigrants.
Thats part of the reason I find it really, really hard to believe
immigrants come here for the welfare. If Guatemalans and Koreans
want cushy welfare, its lost on me why they would choose
Virginia.
Greggery Pecary|5.4.07 @ 5:14PM|#
earn your own PhD's?
pick your own cabbages?
slaughter your own hogs?
no thanks, none for me
bring on the immigrants!
|5.4.07 @ 5:15PM|#
BTW, I am not against immigration. My wife is an immigrant from Europe. My (adopted) nephew is an immigrant from Africa. I'm mainly concerned about the rate of immigration.
|5.4.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Cesar,
I think most immigrants come to work, but some don't, and some end
up needing help through no fault of their own. I have nothing
against them. I might do the same in their position. I admit I'm
being selfish; I don't want to subsidize any more people than I
have to.
Immigrants for me but not for thee, eh?
Hilarious!
(I support my wife and my sister and her husband support my nephew.
They are going to homeschool, and this will probably be their only
child. That's a big financial difference. All of us pay for our own
health care, as well.)
|5.4.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Hilarious!
Thanks. Though I thought my "You misspelled 31" was better.
I'm mainly concerned about the rate of immigration.
Have you no faith in
a) the ability of market forces and the laws of microeconomics
themselves to moderate the flow of immigrants to a level that helps
the economy
and/or
b) the tolerance of the American taxpayer to pay for greater
populations of people trying to live off welfare rather than
contributing to the economy?
Greggery Pecary|5.4.07 @ 5:50PM|#
re: the immigration debate in the USA
The
Blind Men and the Elephant
Urkobold®|5.4.07 @ 5:57PM|#
William R IS ALMOST FUNNY. KEEP TRYING.
NEVER MIND, DON'T.
not even worthy of punishment. oh, so bored and tired. TGIFF.
To celebrate American holiday, Cinco de Mayo, Urkobold will be
leading Mexican and Muslim immigrants (Muslim not an ethnicity, so
Urkobold confused about conflating the two) on a search for
chocolate dildos wrapped in gold foil that VM hid around William
R's house.
Don't be concerned, William R, these immigrants don't want yer
jerb, just your women. Urkobold has spoken to your women. They are
ready to go.
|5.4.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Have you no faith in
a) the ability of market forces and the laws of microeconomics
themselves to moderate the flow of immigrants to a level that helps
the economy
No; not on balance. The market is too controlled by the
government--it's a free market only relative to most other nations,
i.e., it's not really a free market--and the economic, social, and
political disparities between the US and developing nations are too
great.
and/or
b) the tolerance of the American taxpayer to pay for greater
populations of people trying to live off welfare rather than
contributing to the economy?
Unfortunately, yes, although, wage inflation (at the low end) might
draw a few of the slackers into the work force. Maybe.
|5.4.07 @ 6:16PM|#
I was wondering about something. Would Libertopia have
immigration problems? In Libertopia, all of the land would be
privately owned. So, anyone entering the region occupied by
Libertopia would be a tresspasser, and gun-toting libertarian
property owners might not like that. I suppose that the only
immigrants would be people with means, since they'd receive no
services whatsoever, they'd have to pay tolls on any roads,
etc.
Any thoughts on this extreme hypothetical?
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 6:19PM|#
"I was wondering about something. Would Libertopia have
immigration problems? In Libertopia, all of the land would be
privately owned. So, anyone entering the region occupied by
Libertopia would be a tresspasser, and gun-toting libertarian
property owners might not like that. I suppose that the only
immigrants would be people with means, since they'd receive no
services whatsoever, they'd have to pay tolls on any roads,
etc.
Any thoughts on this extreme hypothetical?"
There'd still be immigrants. When we had massive immigration from
Europe, you had to pay for your passage on the ship. I can't
imagine toll roads would be any more expensive than that.
|5.4.07 @ 6:25PM|#
There'd still be immigrants. When we had massive immigration
from Europe, you had to pay for your passage on the ship. I can't
imagine toll roads would be any more expensive than
that.
Good point. I suppose that the number of immigrants would primarily
be limited by the number of Libertopians willing to rent or sell
property to the new arrivals.
|5.4.07 @ 6:26PM|#
I've always heard how cheap it is to live in Mexico. So, if your going to pay them welfare, why not send them back and pay them a few dollars a day. It sounds like a savings.
|5.4.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Would Libertopia have immigration problems?
Of course not. Immigration "problems", as presumed libertarians
keep telling us, are due entirely to immigrants use of public
facilities. Since Libertaria (there are no utopiae) would privatize
all transactions, immigrants would not have the means to immigrate
unless their benefits to the economy were greater than their
costs.
I suppose that the only immigrants would be people with means,
since they'd receive no services whatsoever, they'd have to pay
tolls on any roads, etc.
Or people who have prearranged with an employer to get an advance
to pay for transport. Or people who are brought in by an employment
agency.
There would be no lack of industrious people willing to serve as
middlemen in arranging employment and housing for immigrants. And
there would be no lack of transit companies willing to accept their
money to travel on their roads or vehicles.
|5.4.07 @ 6:30PM|#
BTW, I may very well immigrate. However, I'll follow the immigration laws of the host nation, learn the (most common) language, make a strong effort to assimilate into the culture, and bring my education with me (and hopefully a decent amount of money).
|5.4.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Excellent points, MikeP. You've thought about this before, I
gather? Key point (for me):
Since Libertaria (there are no utopiae) would privatize all
transactions, immigrants would not have the means to immigrate
unless their benefits to the economy were greater than their
costs.
In that case, I'd be all for open borders.
Cesar|5.4.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Slightly off topic, the website below has anti and pro
immigration cartoons from the late 19th and early 20th
century.
http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/imageapp.php?Major=IM&Minor=F
|5.4.07 @ 6:54PM|#
In that case, I'd be all for open borders.
Yep. In that case the economic win is very apparent. I differ in
that I think that allowing more immigrantsn today -- in particular,
legalizing general immigration -- pushes us more toward a
freer market and wealthier economy than away.
Also, I am not willing to hold the improvements in livelihood of
millions of people hostage to something as disagreeable as the
welfare state.
Oliver|5.4.07 @ 6:59PM|#
How we actually go about executing our educational plans has
problems..
How about we just execute the educational system and start
over?
Oliver|5.4.07 @ 7:03PM|#
Kwix, you're right about Ron Paul and I have privately suspected that he is catering to his constituency, plain and simple.
|5.4.07 @ 7:14PM|#
...pushes us more toward a freer market and wealthier
economy...
...as well as more toward a freer society in toto. Compare with the
police state measures being proposed for the border, for local
police, and for employers.
|5.4.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Yep. In that case the economic win is very apparent. I
differ in that I think that allowing more immigrantsn today -- in
particular, legalizing general immigration -- pushes us more toward
a freer market and wealthier economy than away.
...as well as more toward a freer society in toto. Compare with
the police state measures being proposed for the border, for local
police, and for employers.
I have to completely disagree with these comments. The people
immigrating are not known for being libertarian or even
libertarianish. You can expect more socialism from them, more big
government.
|5.4.07 @ 8:25PM|#
The people immigrating are not known for being libertarian
or even libertarianish. You can expect more socialism from them,
more big government.
The people immigrating won't be able to vote for at least a decade.
If they were allowed to come and go freely, the majority would not
even care to stay for citizenship.
Furthermore, residency is not citizenship. Under an open
immigration policy, it is entirely possible to make the
naturalization policy more restrictive.
|5.4.07 @ 9:11PM|#
Under an open immigration policy, it is entirely possible to
make the naturalization policy more restrictive.
Two years service guarantees citizenship!!
Of course, that's already largely happening with our desperate need
for more troops to send to Iraq; our Armed Forces are ever so
slowly beginning to look like a modern Foreign Legion.
The Wine Commonsewer|5.4.07 @ 10:59PM|#
High, Oliver is one of many millions of loyal readers of
TWC.
Thanks, Ollie.
|5.4.07 @ 11:41PM|#
MikeP | May 4, 2007, 4:42pm | #
One ounce Gold coins would have to have 28grams of gold.
You misspelled 31.
Cute remark, Mike. You might also have taken the time to explain to
the rest of the board that an Avoirdupois ounce is equal to a bit
over 28 grams and that a Troy ounce is equal to slightly
more than 31 grams. Gold and other precious metal are
usually measured with the Troy system when used in coinage - thus
the confusion.
|5.5.07 @ 2:10AM|#
Yeah, I considered adding, "That's okay. I can't spell avordupois." But that would have required taking the time to look up the spelling of avoirdupois so I could misspell it properly.
Equality 7-2321|5.5.07 @ 2:13AM|#
Greggery Pecary apparently has yet to figure out what the
"divide" function on a calculator does.
Perhaps you might enlighten us: just what is the optimal supply of
money for any economy?
Land of Lincoln|5.5.07 @ 4:59AM|#
Lincoln wasn't the most handsome candidate either. What matters
is policy.
George W. Bush is handsome and look where that got us. I want the
ugliest president of any country in the world, if it gets us good
sound policy.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245