Alabama Congressman "Will Do Anything Short of Shooting" Illegal Immigrants

Short of murdering them, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) will do anything to rid Alabama of its undocumented workers. 

“They have no right to be here. They are clogging up our emergency rooms and making our education system more expensive,” Brooks told an Alabama TV station. "As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.”

About those jobs: Alabama will soon have a surplus of them, thanks to the state immigration law that goes into effect on September 1

Farmers in Alabama and Georgia have dismissed the new laws as unduly harsh and threatening to the region's migrant-dependent agricultural economy. "Farmers are law-abiding citizens," said Jeff Helm, spokesman for the Alabama Farmers Federation, which represents 48,000 farmers. "They want to do what is right.

"But they are concerned, one, that even the workers who are here legally would flee the state out of concern for what the law means. And, two, farmers [want assurance] that if they follow the law, but there's some breakdown in the system, that they won't suffer criminal repercussions. ... We believe these issues are better handled at the federal level."

And here's John Zippert, program director for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Rural Training & Research Center in Epes, Ala.:

"This is scaring Hispanic workers away, not just from the Alabama fields, but also from the northern Alabama, in chicken processing plants. I don't think other unemployed people are going to take those jobs. It's very hard work and not fairly paid. From an economic standpoint, this is a real problem."

A small price to keep America's dirt free of sweats foreign and domestic. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sinic||

    They must be some seriously shit jobs if Alabamans won't do them.

  • Hugh Akston||

    They probably require you to be up before noon.

  • Jim||

    And even worse...sober.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unemployment pays better, and you don't have to work for it.

  • Elitist Libertarians||

    We're not elitists!

  • spellcheck||

    it's Alabamians...

  • ||

    In economics, there is one, true, great, invariant law -- the Law of Prices.

    The Law of Prices holds that the winning bids of demand in the face of supply set the price.

    The Law of Prices works regardless of any government interference including when bureaucrats and technocrats refuse to enforce immigration laws.

    Well, if no Alabamian wants to pick crops or work in chicken factories, the executives on behalf of the material capital owners must bid higher prices (pay higher wages) to induce workers to switch from whatever it is they're doing.

    Of course, at the same time, if operating at higher costs prohibit Alabamian farmers and chicken processors from earning profits, i.e., by operating at losses, then such farmers and processors need to get put to ruin.

    Thus, through the mechanism of the market, individuals have decreed that farming and chicken processing in Alabama involves an inefficient use of resources, which would get put to better uses elsewhere.

    This is how free markets work, kiddies.

    Authentic Libertarians know this and this is one reason why Authentic Libertarians oppose illegal immigration.

    Authentic Libertarians oppose any action that increases the size and scope of government.Such action includes expansion of socialist welfare and income transfer owing to illegal immigrants.

    Of course, libertines and progressive, pragmatist liberals masquerading as libertarians -- which we see quite often in the comments at Reason.com -- champion the plight of illegal immigrants.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Authentic Libertarians think in a free market, the government will use force to separate employees from their employer?

  • ||

    Criminals lack status to become employees.

  • GILMORE||

    authentic libertarians dont run around telling other people what the fucking litmus test for authentic libertarianism is.

    in fact, authentic libertarians tend to mind their own fucking business and not worry about other people's.

    authentic libertarians dont capitalize and bold-type shit for no reason

    other than their names, natch

    btw, nothing you said above has nearly any relationship whatsoever to the question of the free movement of labor and the right to engage in private contracts without coersion or interference

    you want to quote me Von Mises, Friedman, or Hayek, where they actually say anything about immigration? Please go ahead. or are they not ... Authentic enough for you?

  • ||

    Yes, we do. Every concept has definition, including the concept of libertarianism.

    Criminals lack rights to engage in contracts. All contracts entered into with criminals are null and void and carry no weight in civil law.

    So did you want to talk about contract law, Gilmore or were you merely making chit chat.

    I'll continue to school all day if that is your preference.

  • ||

    I've abandoned libertarian free market principles by championing illegal immigration and gay marriage to expand the size and scope of progressive, pragmatic liberal government and save my inculcated false beliefs indoctrinated into me by my socialist, progressive educators the free market system.

    ~ GILMORE | George W. Bush

    Of course, always bold Authentic Libertarians would never do such.

    HA HA HA

    Is this bold? HA HA HA

  • GILMORE||

    Your insight is indeed invaluable.

    Could you possibly share more about the whole "catholic-immigrant-scum that destroyed a once-great America", that you were talking about the other day? It was fascinating.

    and cc:
    gillespie@reason.com
    matt.welch@reason.com
    bdoherty@reason.com
    rbailey@reason.com
    bigtimcavanaugh@gmail.com
    et al
    ... they need to learn too!

    Also, I think I met another Authentic Libertarian once... here = http://24ahead.com/

    The guy is VeryFascinating. I think you will have a true meeting of the minds.

    Also, there's this guy Eric Donderoooooo I think you should talk to......

  • ||

    You're angry at the messenger merely because I've pointed out your illogical stance.

    You suffer from what is known as relativistic ethics, also known as situational ethics.

    Worry not. Consider yourself ordinary. Most are. Most suffer from the same flawed, inconsistent thought.

    That's why you're willing to toss aside libertarian principles, GILMORE for anything that makes you feel good.

  • GILMORE||

    What, no follow-up on the inherent evil of Teh Catholics and their progeny?

    What stance have I taken, btw? You've managed to turn me into straw man without me saying so much as boo. You're the one with the points-scoring complex. The only thing we've discussed are =

    1) you have an irrational and baseless hatred of NY'ers and Catholics

    2) you think Anti-gay marriage and immigration-issues are 'naturally' libertarian issues, despite providing flimsy bases for either idea.

    Hoist yourself all day. I'm not put off by it at all. To each their own.

    As far as libertarian principles, one of mine is to live and let live. Go figure.

  • ||


    authentic libertarians dont run around telling other people what the fucking litmus test for authentic libertarianism is. ~~ GILMORE

    Ah, hello. McFly. *knock knock*

    The reason for the existence of Reason Magazine, the Reason Foundation and Reason.com is to do exactly that.

    Ludwig von Mises was a 10th rate, talking shop academic economist who plagiarized much of his work including stealing phrases from others such as 'human action'.

    His trade cycle theory is unoriginal and precedes him in the works of others by decades.

    His elaborate and thoroughly unneeded time preference theory amounts to foolery and is like something from Jean-Claude Van Damme in Time Cop.

    Because Mises never ran a firm and thus lacked proper referential entrepreneurial experience, Mises didn't get capital, income, profit and interest rates.

    Friedman was a monetarist and supported a legal tender, centralized bank note circulating in perpetuity system with steady rate, targeted money accretion goals.

    Though his Road to Surfdom yielded much, Hayek was a real bills quack, a long disproved money system.

    So did you want to talk all things money, credit, commercial banking and central banking, GILMORE because I'll be glad to school you all day here as well.

    In so far as Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, Brian Doherty, Ron Bailey, and Tim Cavanuagh -- who gives a fuck?

    They're mere mortals and always become wrong when they champion gay marriage and illegal immigration.

    Gillespie, Welch, Doherty, Bailey, and Cavanuagh lack any great insight into all things economics and economy because they have a near childish understanding of all things money, credit, commercial banking and central banking.

    That said, they're not bad guys. They mean well. For the most part, they have a good grasp of libertarianism. Yet, sometimes, they confuse themselves and take the anti-libertarian stances of progressive, pragmatist liberals.

    Always, the authentic libertarian works to restore Freedom -- the realm where a man (or woman) is self-sovereign -- and to destroy Officialdom -- the realm where men (and women) dole out privilege based on racism -- forming groups based on arbitrary characteristics (no penis - NOW, swarthy skin -- NAACP, same-sex sex fetish - Act Up!, Spanish-speaking mestizo - La Raza (The Race) and then racing for the spoils of forced income taxation and redistribution.

    Only the mediocre IQ wannabe libertarian, who more often than not is merely a libertine progressive liberal. All too often, such knuckleheads support action (e.g., converting illegals to legals) that increases the size and scope of government. And that is the anti-libertarian position.

    In so far as the illegal immigration issue, there are alternatives that would benefit all.

    For example, Mexicans, Canadians and Americans could agree -- and this is a smart idea -- to permit anyone of the respective countries to cross borders and work in any occupation. As long as the social(ist) welfare systems are in place, payroll deduction could go to the respective governments after a handling fee such that a Mexican working in America pays for his or her socialist benefits in Mexico, likewise an American working in Mexico would contribute to her or his socialist benefits in America, and same for the Canadian.

  • GILMORE||

    I see.

    I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    You do have one, I hope?

  • GILMORE||

    Also, please to point to the approved list of "authentics", so we may cease being deluded by these charlatan hacks...

  • ||

    You're angry at the messenger merely because I've pointed out your illogical stance.

    You suffer from what is known as relativistic ethics, also known as situational ethics.

    Worry not. Consider yourself ordinary. Most are. Most suffer from the same flawed, inconsistent thought.

    That's why you're willing to toss aside libertarian principles, GILMORE for anything that makes you feel good.

  • GILMORE||

    Is this deja vu, or was this posted twice.?

  • Max Stirner||

    Interesting, I've always considered converting our government into a fascist police state to control borders and the "immigrant problem" to be an increase the size of government. But then again, I must not be a real libertarian since I'm not a xenophobic bigot.

    Papers please.

  • kbolino||

    Then none of us could seek remunerative employment. Nor could any of us can enter into or enforce contracts either.

    Because the fact of the matter is, there is no one alive over the age of 18 who is not a criminal. Every single human being alive in any society has committed a crime, and if you can truly make the case that you have not, then I say you are not alive, in any meaningful sense of the word.

    I say this as a "law-abiding" citizen who shies away from most of the exercises of my liberty. Nevertheless, I have committed crimes in my life, some known, others not. Some days I commit a dozen crimes before I leave the house for work.

    But let's set that aside for a moment, and ask a more salient question: why does committing ANY crime invalidate EVERY contract (or form of employment, etc.)?

    More specifically, if I hold a contract with party X, and I murder party Y say, what bearing does that have on my contract with X? If I am convicted and sentenced to prison, I may be legally incapable of upholding my requirements under the contract, and so I may be in breach of it, but it does not become void because of unrelated actions on my part or the part of others.

    Likewise, why is an "illegal" immigrant unable to hold employment? An employer is not beholden to his government, and should not be bound to enforce the government's immigration policies, regardless of the public support or lack thereof. The government may punish the employee, and even deport him, but I fail to see how the
    employer is responsible.

    Remuneration from employer to employee does not diminish the freedom of third parties. Thus, under what authority may any libertarian claim to restrict it?

    Your arguments are, at best, fallacious, and at worst, downright disingenuous. Under your own criteria, you should be fired from your job, forced to repay your mortgage and other debts (if you hold any), and prohibited from participating in any other form of contract or association.

    Unless you think you're not a criminal, in which case you're not even human, and so I discourse with an automaton.

  • Johnny Clamboat||

    Authentic Libertarians oppose illegal immigration.

    Authentic Libertarians oppose any action that increases the size and scope of government.

    Did you consider the contradictory nature of these sentences before typing them in succession?

  • ||

    There's nothing contradictory about those sentences.

    Let me slow it down for you and others who ride the short bus. It's the weak-minded who get confused over mere rhetoric to support the progressive, pragmatic liberal position.

    By championing the cause of illegal immigration -- converting illegals to legal immigrant status, you support the increase in the size and scope of government through increased entitlement welfare and the attendant bureaucracy, from Head Start school lunches to free-to-them college tuition.

    As illegal immigration is already illegal and the already necessary infrastructure is in place, at least government does not increase in size and scope.

    Once the welfare state gets dismantled, the borders can get opened.

    That's the Authentic Libertarian position.

  • GILMORE||

    As illegal immigration is already illegal...

    Wait... can you explain that again... slower?

    Also, whats a tautology? And is it authentic?

  • ||

    I'd love to meet your mommy and daddy to see what pieces of work they must be. Apples fall near to the tree, if you've not heard.

    The proper quote is, and I shall quote myself,


    As illegal immigration is already illegal and the already necessary infrastructure is in place, at least government does not increase in size and scope.

    There is nothing tautological about it. The same thing isn't getting said twice.

    Yet, since you're suffering from reading comprehension problems, bold GILMORE, I'll school you here as well.

    Since an infrastructure exists to enforce the statutes regarding illegal immigration, enforcing those statutes does not increase the size and scope of government.

    If the above is too hard for you to get, check out craigslist.org and seek someone to teach you reading comprehension skills.

  • MWG||

    Stay classy Alabama.

  • hazeeran||

    So when a business opens in America, employable positions are automatically the right of natives to have, regardless if others can do it better? I've had it wrong the WHOLE time.

  • jkp||

    "It's very hard work and not fairly paid."

    Then this will be an interesting test of how far down the anti-immigration sentiment goes. Are people willing to pay more for their groceries (to cover the costs of paying a better wage to attract 'legal' workers,) to have the satisfaction of reducing illegal immigration?

  • ||

    I think he is confusing low pay for unfair pay. That's what these idiots don't get: if people are willing to do the work for that wage, then it is fair. The market dictates wages, and some jobs command less because the supply of labor is greater than the demand.

    Next up: the federal fair wage board, set up by the next team red stooge in charge to establish wage floors for jobs done by illegal immigrants to get natives off their couches and into the fields, and those damn beaners back across the Rio Grande.

    Fuck, is there not a side to this issue that isn't looking for the government to wave it's magic wand and solve everything?

  • Hugh Akston||

    People who spout hot air for a living consider anything less than $70,000/year to be the equivalent of subsistence farming.

  • Democratic Strategist||

    It's because of the Bush tax cuts.

  • Old Salt||

    So now I gotta pay more for my Fucking Fried Chicken because some old rich honkey hasn't had the goddamn common courtesy to fucking die and let someone more modern represent his cluster fuck state?

    *SIGH*

    That's democracy for you...

  • ||

    Fucking Fried Chicken

    Have the officially changed the name? Colonel Harlan Fucking Sanders would be proud.

  • Old Salt||

    "Fucking Fried Chicken" is an old family recipe who's knowledge was "beat" into me by a Black Dominatrix!

  • Old Mexican||

    "They have no right to be here. They are clogging up our emergency rooms and making our education system more expensive," Brooks told an Alabama TV station.


    I detect a subtle hint of bullshit in his remarks...

    And here's John Zippert, program director for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Rural Training & Research Center in Epes, Ala.:

    "This is scaring Hispanic workers away, not just from the Alabama fields, but also from the northern Alabama, in chicken processing plants. I don't think other unemployed people are going to take those jobs. It's very hard work and not fairly paid. From an economic standpoint, this is a real problem."


    Most people do not understand the underlying economics of migrant work. What employers are looking for is not cheap labor: They could bring Haitians to work for nothing if they wanted to. What they are looking for is affordable labor. And NO, it is NOT the same. One of the biggest hurdles that employers have to face is the high cost of employing people in the US, because of payroll taxes, FICA, SS and Medicare, besides Worker's Comp insurance, liability and other impediments created by do-gooder politicians and lawyers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anyone who says "Lazy Mexican" never worked with one.

  • herve villachaize||

    ..you sure got that right!

  • Hank||

    Hooray for flattering racism!

  • ||

    mas uno

  • ||

    I worked with the Mexican Women’s Olympic Gymnastics team in the early '90s. They gave the appearance of being lazy because they rested after lunch (as they would do in the heat of their native Mexico) even though they were in Pennsylvania.

    Circadian rhythms =/= lazy

    The Puerto Ricans on the other hand…

  • ||

    Correction: early '80s

  • Tony||

    If we just finish the quest of convincing white people they aren't entitled to a fair wage and decent lifestyle, they'll be doing backbreaking menial labor soon enough.

  • Jim||

    ...they aren't entitled to a fair wage and decent lifestyle...

    Now you're finally getting it! You are correct...no one is entitled to those things.

  • Tony||

    Certainly not in libertopia.

  • stephendedalus82||

    Hey idiot, you're not entitled to those things because you're not entitled to the labor of others (ie those who created the business in the first place).

  • MNG||

    It's not about whether they are entitled to it, it's about whether a society with more that is better than one without. Liberty (or at least the libertarian conception of it) is nice, but if the cost of it is the bulk of human beings being miserable then it should give way. Things liberty and property should be means to an end (the well being of actual human beings), when they become ends that block the end of actual welfare that's goofy. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath...

  • stephendedalus82||

    "It's not about whether they are entitled to it..."

    According to Tony, 'it' is.

  • MNG||

    should be "with more of that" with that being good wages and decent lifestyles.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    It's not about whether they are entitled to it, it's about whether a society with more that is better than one without.


    This is as vague and touchy-feely remark as one can get. Like asking if a society would be better off or worse off without girls in ponytails and pink dresses: WHO IS "SOCIETY"?

    Liberty (or at least the libertarian conception of it)[...]


    That is, not slavery, I pressume. The contrary to "Liberty" as defined by Statists.

    but if the cost of it is the bulk of human beings being miserable then it should give way.


    Ooooh, don't tell me: You can know if people are miserable by... asking them?

    A planet where people's lives are ruled by poll results?

  • sarcasmic||

    Envy is the cause of misery.
    Life isn't worth living if someone else has it better than you.

    The mere existence of rich people causes misery.
    I mean, they exist! How terrible is that?

    That is why the rich must be torn down. When there is nobody to envy then the world will be free of misery.

    Everyone will be equal.

    Equally poor, but equal.

    And nobody will be miserable because there will be nobody to envy.

  • Tony||

    All you have to do is define well-being by appealing to certain metrics. These aren't arbitrary. Health, education level, upward mobility, etc. The world is not quite as relativistic as you make it out to be.

  • sarcasmic||

    These aren't arbitrary.


    As you arbitrarily pick some.
    What a fucking idiot you are.

  • Tony||

    So health and education are relevant to human well-being?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    All you have to do is define well-being by appealing to certain metrics.


    Would you then subject your feeling of well-being to a metric?

    "What's today? Oh, I am feeling blue, according to today's metric!"

    These aren't arbitrary.


    Of course they are.

    Health, education level, upward mobility, etc.


    And you think these indicators are NOT arbitrary? You're a fool.

  • Tony||

    Health and education aren't more relevant to human well-being than, say, access to bobbleheads? It's only arbitrary if you're being deliberately obtuse. What human beings need to live a decent life is known to some degree of certainty (though not absolute certainty, of course).

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Health and education aren't more relevant to human well-being than, say, access to bobbleheads?


    Depends on who wants the bubbleheads.

    It's only arbitrary if you're being deliberately obtuse.


    Just because I point out your subjective reasoning does not mean I am being obtuse. The fact that YOU value health and education more does not make them more valuable to everyone.

    What human beings need to live a decent life is known to some degree of certainty[...]


    You cannot presume to know what humans need, Tony. You're no mind reader.

  • sarcasmic||

    You cannot presume to know what humans need, Tony.

    But authority says that's what people need therefore it must be true.

    It came from authority.

    Authority!

  • dudeinAL||

    You cannot presume to know what humans need, Tony. You're no mind reader.

    This

  • Tony||

    Fine. Go without food and water for a month and see how you feel. After such time I will posit that food and water are essential to human well-being, and I will dare you to disagree. Now do the same for bobbleheads. No difference whatsoever? We can't possibly know what makes for a livable human life?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Fine. Go without food and water for a month and see how you feel.


    What does this have to do with the metrics you proposed above, i.e. health and education?

    Now do the same for bobbleheads. No difference whatsoever?


    You shifted the focus by changing the comparison, going from health and education to food and water vs bobbleheads. You're a shifty dude, Tony.

    We can't possibly know what makes for a livable human life?


    We can. That does not mean ipso facto you can measure well-being.

  • Critic||

    Episiarch commanded you people to stop. feeding. the. trolls.

    What the hell is wrong with you?

  • T||

    Epi, being as close to a straight up anarchist as we have around here, does not command us. He impolitely suggested we stop. We are free to ignore his suggestions.

  • J_L_B||

    What human beings need to live a decent life is known to some degree of certainty (though not absolute certainty, of course).

    What the left often leaves out is material well-being; it's often dismissed as greed, but really it is at the heart of living. Government-enforced improvements in those metrics you mentioned often come at the expense of material well-being. Education and health care aren't much solace to those who feel poverty (or near poverty) is the price to pay.

  • Tony||

    Who has ever gone into poverty paying taxes?

    My whole point is that a poor child's healthcare and education are more important for a society to value than a multi-millionaire's access to an extra few grand. Taking away basic needs of poor people is more of a moral outrage than taking a few extra dollars from a person who has every basic need met 100 times over. That's just the way it is. By all means argue the opposite, but you're on no firmer ground than I am.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh yeah, I forgot that not taking something by force is the same as giving something away, and not giving something away is the same as taking it by force.

    not stealing = giving

    not giving = stealing

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    My whole point is that a poor child's healthcare and education are more important for a society to value than a multi-millionaire's access to an extra few grand.


    So no more mention of the importance of obtaining bobbleheads, I presume?

  • J_L_B||

    Who has ever gone into poverty paying taxes?

    Pretty much the entire nations of Cuba and North Korea... except for the elites of course.

    Life in Europe, their socialist states come at the expense of basic comforts. My aunt's bathroom in Spain is the size of half my closet, and the same is true for the other hundred people who live in her building.

    When eating out, owning a car, house, iPad, or flat screen TV become things only the rich can afford because of high tax rates then we're talking about a diminished standard of living.

  • Justin Cases||

    Why is it always about giving money to the poorest of the poor taking it from the richest of the rich? Like there is no other money available?

    tell you what, how about cutting back on fraud, or lazy fucks who won't work, or funding political allies and all the pet projects, and funding for those useless projects that is squandered away each year.

    Really Tony, is it more important that we use taxpayers dollars to put a shrimp on a treadmill instead of feeding the hungry?

    Why is it always about coming back for more after government just pissed away the money they just received?

    The fact that your first response is always to come back for more makes you a fuck, and also belies the fact that the you have the interests of the poor and needy at heart.

  • Apogee||

    tell you what, how about cutting back on fraud, or lazy fucks who won't work, or funding political allies and all the pet projects, and funding for those useless projects that is squandered away each year.

    You're mistaken if you think the commenters who pine for government control are in a separate group than the one you describe.

  • ||

    Tony says:


    My whole point is that a poor child's healthcare and education are more important for a society to value than a multi-millionaire's access to an extra few grand.

    You have no way of knowing this Tony. By investing as he sees fit, the multi-millionaire could be the key investment from millions of investments that triggers substantive economic growth which improves the health and education of not only your mythical, save-the-children poster child, but all children.


    Taking away basic needs of poor people is more of a moral outrage than taking a few extra dollars from a person who has every basic need met 100 times over.

    Claiming that anyone is taking away needs is mere rhetoric.

    Rightly, you should have written:

    Is not giving to those who are retarded or born by the near retarded free-to-them minimal food, water, minimal clothes and minimal shelter a moral outrage?

    While everyone on earth is right to want to live. No one earth is right to want to live at the expense of others when such spending comes from force or the threat of force such as income taxation.

    Sadly, Tony, you suffer from mediocre IQ and corrupted morals. Thus, you're a caricature of a human, a living gargoyle, grotesque in all manners and ways.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sadly, Tony, you suffer from mediocre IQ and corrupted morals. Thus, you're a caricature of a human, a living gargoyle, grotesque in all manners and ways.

    In other words he would make an effective politician, lawyer, judge, or upper level bureaucrat.

  • Tony||

    By investing as he sees fit, the multi-millionaire could be the key investment...

    Or the people could invest in something real and proven, such as a social safety net to give children somewhat more of a level playing field in this world, instead of relying on hopes in future John Galts. The motivation of an individual investor is to make money, not provide basic needs to children. That's why we have government in the first place.

    No one earth is right to want to live at the expense of others when such spending comes from force or the threat of force such as income taxation.

    So children don't have a right to live at the expense of their parents under threat of government force?

    Your problem is a completely ahistorical and nonscientific assumption about human beings live. We are biologically wired to be social and empathetic and to seek mutual benefit through cooperation. That it's formalized in government is a reflection only of the needs of modern human civilization.

  • sarcasmic||

    So children don't have a right to live at the expense of their parents under threat of government force?

    Hopefully parents do so because they love their children, not because of any threat of government force. If they need to be threatened with force to take care of their children then perhaps the kids would be better off in an orphanage than to be forced to live with parents who do not love them.

    We are biologically wired to be social and empathetic and to seek mutual benefit through cooperation.

    Mutual benefit through voluntary exchange. Hmmmmm, I believe there's a term for that. Oh yeah! Free market!

    That it's formalized in government is a reflection only of the needs of modern human civilization.

    Government is formalized cooperation?
    Uh, no?
    Government is force. It is the opposite of cooperation.
    I don't say "Thank you" when I pay some fee or license. I say "Fuck you".
    Every time I deal with government I say "Fuck you". I don't say it out loud because I don't want to be beaten.

    That is not social or empathic.

  • Tony||

    If they need to be threatened with force to take care of their children then perhaps the kids would be better off in an orphanage than to be forced to live with parents who do not love them.

    Yeah and who's supposed to make that decision for them and transport them to the orphanage? In a minimal government world, children would necessarily be more at the random mercy of parents, good or bad. I don't see how that fits into your liberty scheme. In fact children are a big problem for the entire libertarian enterprise if you ask me.

    Of course government is force. Even nontechnological tribal societies require enforcement of some sort. So how do you protect the rules of cooperation (and the market) in a society of 300 million people without government force?

  • sarcasmic||

    limited government does not mean no government you fucking retard

  • MNG||

    "WHO IS "SOCIETY"?"

    so·ci·e·ty/səˈsīətē/Noun
    1. The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
    2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

    "You can know if people are miserable by... asking them?"

    Actually, that's one way. But we can also take what we know about human nature and needs and determine that sort of thing pretty well.

  • PIRS||

    " Liberty (or at least the libertarian conception of it) is nice, but if the cost of it is the bulk of human beings being miserable then it should give way."

    Trade is a double inequality. In other words, both people lack something before the trade and both people gain something after the trade. Whenever you limit what can be traded or for how much you prevent people from benefiting who otherwise could. In other words you make people MORE miserable.

    A wage is simply a price. If you raise the price or wage for a service you decrease the number of people who can possibly benefit from the trade.

    Ever wonder why gasoline stations almost never have employees who check your oil and wipe your windows (in the United States)?

  • El Foldo||

    well said!

  • ||

    Liberty (or at least the libertarian conception of it) is nice, but if the cost of it is the bulk of human beings being miserable then it should give way.

    (1) So, your misery is all the justification you need to infringe on my rights? What's the phrase? Oh, yeah: "Fuck off, slaver."

    (2) This rather assumes, doesn't it, that a society where the needs of the collective are paramount will have less misery. How's the track record on that working out?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "How's the track record..."
    But, but, good intentions.
    End of story.

  • MNG||

    Yes, I think human suffering is worse than coercion. Nutty I know.

  • Whappan?||

    What you fail to acknowledge is that coercion and human suffering go together. You are under the illusion that human suffering can be minimized through coercion.

  • Apogee||

    It's under no illusion. The ones supporting the coercion are the ones profiting from it.

    This is about money, not ideology.

  • cynical||

    "It's not about whether they are entitled to it, it's about whether a society with more that is better than one without."

    Maybe it's that leftists want employment to be some sort of modern serfdom, where the employee is basically yoked to one employer for life, with that employer being completely responsible for all aspects of their well being. They believe that that it's better to be on welfare than work for less than what they deem a living wage, which leads to wasted productivity.

    Compare and contrast with teenagers, who actually are someone's wards. Parents often encourage their kids to get jobs, but do not actually expect the company to make their teen self-sufficient. They just use it as an opportunity to teach them character and allow them to have some spending money.

    The only tolerable welfare program would be to cut a flat check to every citizen in good standing, regardless of wealth -- ideally, as a share of whatever is left after spending and debt service, to give everyone a stake in cutting waste. For the lower classes, it will actually help them -- but it won't help them any less if they're working. For the middle class, it will offset their taxes. For the wealthy, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to their payout to the government. No strings attached, no questions asked, but no further government aid either.

  • Old Mexican||

    "As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens."


    What this jackass and most like him do not seem to get is that the jobs do not belong to "Americans," they belong to the employers. Nobody is entitled to a job by birthright, that's stupid.

  • hazeeran||

    My sentiment above.

  • MNG||

    Why shouldn't the government of a nation establish conditions that greatly favor the filling of jobs in that society by citizens?

  • Sleeping Dog||

    Taking that train of thought to its logical end: Why don't we just make foreign goods, services, and trade illegal too?

  • MNG||

    Fine with me, or rather I'm fine with creating conditions which foster American goods and services over foriegn ones, unless we as a society decide that we are advantaged more than disavantaged by allowing it otherwise.

  • tarran||

    Twon hundred years ago, Adam Smith, tried to explain why, even under mercantilist standards, people were better off with trade.

    And yet here we are...

  • MNG||

    Hence my qualifying cause above.

  • The Zingerer||

    Zing-Zing-Zing! Zoom-Zoom-Zoom!

  • European Jews||

    Lets let 'society' decide as a collective. 'Society' is great at 'deciding' things.

  • North Korean Juche||

    Google it.

  • hazeeran||

    If you want to buy American, fine, but don't drag me into it with the force of government. I would rather benefit from comparative advantage than benefit those with whom I share an accidental birth within invisible lines.

  • MNG||

    We don't let you engage in a lot of things that seem to only involve consensual parties engaged in disposing of property as they see fit, we bar it when it negatively effects the public good. Think child labor, indentured servitude, animal cruelty, nuisance laws, etc. If trade does the same, say by lowering the overal welfare of your fellow citizens (though it may enrich you) we might bar it as well.

  • ||

    Think child labor, indentured servitude, animal cruelty, nuisance laws, etc.

    Don't forget the war on drugs, laws against gambling and prostitution (and, I suppose gay marriage), blue laws, etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum amen.

  • ||

    Did I forget? Jim Crow also fits nicely into that list.

  • MNG||

    Sure, some actions between consenting parties are fine, some are not. I'm not the fundamentalist here, you guys are.

  • hazeeran||

    You're implicitly saying trade must only benefit one party at someone else's expense. False.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Fine with me, or rather I'm fine with creating conditions which foster American goods and services over foriegn ones, unless we as a society decide that we are advantaged more than disavantaged by allowing it otherwise.


    "Society" already decides this through the price system and consumer choices, MNG. You might not like it because it's not a top-down, overlord-slaves system, but nobody really cares about your wet dreams.

  • MNG||

    "nobody really cares about your wet dreams."

    Actually society also decides this sort of thing by setting up governments that make rules about it. It's you that's wet dreaming.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,
    Actually society also decides this sort of thing by setting up governments that make rules about it.
    I am pretty sure you believe that wholeheartedly. For instance, only "society" could come up with Sarbanes-Oxley, right?

    It's you that's wet dreaming.


    I am not the one giving mere concepts, like "society," the power of choice, MNG. YOU are.

  • MNG||

    The society of the United States has a government that indeed does make choices.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    The society of the United States has a government that indeed does make choices.


    Which means that society is not really making the choices. Having a body of notables make the choices is not society "making choices."

  • MNG||

    The way our society makes these decisions is to elect representatives who then decide, yes.

  • Apogee||

    The election of representatives does not enable them to decide whatever they wish (or do the bidding of the highest briber).

    They are limited in their decisions by the Constitution. You're familiar with that document? It's the one you invoke when Republicans occupy the Presidency.

    You're not stupid, and you don't believe in your stated ideology.

    You will never solve the 'problem' of being able to 'dictate' behavior and rules to those who are wealthier and more politically connected than yourself, and you know it. It's not up for discussion, and your politicians will see to that, because they know you're too much of a pussy to actually ever challenge their sweet arrangement.

    You can argue that point, but then someone might question you about the Obama administration, and then it's all over.

    Your only hope is to scam some more for yourself by being a good little soldier.

    We don't let you engage in a lot of things...

    Careful, your totalitarian is showing.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Comparative advantage, dude. I think it is covered in chapter two of International Financial Management.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Why shouldn't the government of a nation establish conditions that greatly favor the filling of jobs in that society by citizens?


    Because the jobs are not government's. That's why.

    It's like asking why wouldn't government mandate that hotel rooms are filled with citizens only. Makes sense, MNG? Or are you oh-so conveniently cavalier when it comes to jobs only?

  • MNG||

    The jobs may not be the government's, but the conditions in which they are filled can, and should, be impacted by it.

  • ||

    Jesus Titty-fucking Christ. I knew Minge was an Anti-Semite, but I had no idea he was also a nationalistic zealot/bigot.

    Fuck you, Minge. Fuck your anti-immigrant views and your Jew-baiting, you piece of shit.

  • MNG||

    How rational and eloquent you always are sloop! Where can we subsribe to your newsletter?

  • ||

    Rationality and eloquence tend to go out the window when I am arguing with a chimp that has learned to type.
    Or with an anti-Semite who incessantly blames the world's problems on Israel.
    Or with a statist bootlicker.
    Or with a fuckface who never argues in good faith.

    Basically, they go out the window when you pop your water-baby head out of your mom's basement.

  • MNG||

    You're an idiot sloop. I don't blame the world's probems on Israel (though I might blame some of the Palestinians problems on them). Far from a "statist bootlicker" I oppose a good chunk of what the government does. The "good faith" thing is just something your side cries when your pussy hurts and you argue as badly as, well, you just did.

  • ||

    You almost never argue in good faith. You consistently move the goalposts until you are cornered. When that happens, you tuck your tail between your legs to cover your emasculated self, just like the gamma dog you are.

    I am almost done treating you seriously, as your commentary evokes more in the way of pity and derision than it ever could of seriousness.

  • MNG||

    Yeah, the guy who just accused me of Jew-baiting because I differ on Israeli policy is accusing me of not arguing seriously or in good faith. Dude, I never took you seriously why should I?

  • sarcasmic||

    The best way for government to help create jobs is to get the fuck out of the way and allow people to do whatever the fuck they want as long as the interaction is voluntary and does not involve force or fraud.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    The jobs may not be the government's, but the conditions in which they are filled can, and should, be impacted by it.


    What's with this "should" shit? Why would that be? Because you say? Because government says?

  • MNG||

    What's with this "should" shit on your part, like the government "should" not interfere with trade and hiring and such?

    Don't look now but you're not free of normative assumptions in this tussle.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    What's with this "should" shit on your part, like the government "should" not interfere with trade and hiring and such?


    Because I don't have to prove negatives, MNG. You make the assertion, you provide the proof.

  • Tony||

    Wow. So it's a negative claim just because it has the word "not" in it? It's not a positive claim about what government should be doing at all?

  • MNG||

    Er, OK. The implied premise there is: the government should do things that positively impact the overall welfare of its citizens.

    Shocking I know. But wait, it gets worse. They should also do so even when it may impact your conception of liberty!

    Do I need to get out smelling salts to wake you?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    The implied premise there is: the government should do things that positively impact the overall welfare of its citizens.


    That's not a premise, that's an opinion.

    Shocking I know. But wait, it gets worse. They should also do so even when it may impact your conception of liberty!


    Which makes it, what? Opression?

    Glad to know where YOU stand!

  • MNG||

    "Opression"

    Yeah, no "shoulds" in your argument!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    "Opression"[...]Yeah, no "shoulds" in your argument!


    I love your non-sequiturs. They're delicious.

    I am not making a normative statement, MNG, I am defining what YOU asserted: Having the government limit my liberty is called "Opression"

  • MNG||

    Oppression | Define Oppression at Dictionary.com
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppression - CachedSimilar
    the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.


    Exactly. So, where's the "should," then?

    Limiting my liberty is burdersome, it is certainly unjust, and in my view: cruel. You were the one that said: "They [the government] should also do so even when it may impact your conception of liberty!"

    I never said "should" or "should not." I indicated that what you prescribe is opression. Am I wrong? Not according to the definition you provided so kindly.

  • MNG||

    Cruel and unjust don't involve normative judgments?

    un·just/ˌənˈjəst/
    Adjective: Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

  • ||

    Taking more of my money to pay for people who can, but won't work and can't learn to use a condom equals the burdensome and unjust manner definitions of oppression.

  • Apogee||

    What's even worse than that is taking the money under the guise of 'giving' it to people who won't work and/or can't use a condom, but then actually distributing said money to politically connected cronies.

  • Bar Student||

    Since you rely on utilitarian arguments:

    Because citizens as a whole will be worse off. You ensure one citizen gets a job over a non-citizen who would have worked for less that one worker benefits but everyone else in society loses.

  • MNG||

    Well, sure. Like I said, if we are advantaged overall then we should allow/encourage it. But that is an empirical issue, not an axiomatic one.

  • ||

    This is like debates about government-run education--the real problem is more fundamental than the terms of the public debate. In this case, it's the welfare state that makes people object to illegal immigration. It's not like citizens are wanting to compete for jobs picking fruit twelve hours a day.

  • Tony||

    Pretty sure that's just an excuse.

  • ||

    Actually, ProL, it's nativism and xenophobia that's the real problem.

    THEY TOOK UR JERBS

  • ||

    I don't doubt that's part of it, but I think the view of people being here on the dole who aren't citizens rankles quite a few, even if they're basing that more on perception than fact.

    Down here, I know quite a few Hispanics who have this attitude, even those who weren't born here. That's probably a little bit "Got mine!", but it does show that xenophobia doesn't explain everything.

  • MNG||

    "I think the view of people being here on the dole who aren't citizens rankles quite a few"

    It should.

  • ||

    "I think the view of people being here on the dole who aren't citizens rankles quite a few"

    It should.

    Actually, it should be people on the dole in general that rankles. Why is anyone more entitled to the fruits of my labor than I am, regardless of where they were born? Fuck the immigrant on the dole, but fuck the native on the dole as well.

  • MNG||

    Because, just as people feel an affinity to affections for and responsibilities towards their cousins, they feel so towards their countrymen and women.

  • ||

    Because, just as people feel an affinity to affections for and responsibilities towards their cousins, they feel so towards their countrymen and women.

    And I'm fine with that, but don't codify it so I am compelled to financially support my cousins or countrymen before I support anybody else who supplies what I need or want for a better price.

  • MNG||

    Sorry, you don't live on an island. We're going to make you not harm your countrymen, and also might make you help them. Tough if you don't like it.

  • ||

    You're right. We don't live on an island. That's why your America-centric views are so perplexing in a world that is becoming more transient all the time.

  • Jim||

    ...and also might make you help them. Tough if you don't like it.

    And yet, if a plurality of my friends voted to rob you at gunpoint in order to assist one of us who is poorer than the rest, you would probably find that wrong. Sometimes you argue out of good faith. Most of the time you're a complete fucking idiot.

  • MNG||

    That's right, the 98% of people who don't equate taxation to armed robbery are not arguing in good faith Jim. Keep believing.

  • Jim||

    Since you can't explain the difference, yes, I do believe those 98% are arguing in bad faith.

    And note: "because the majority agrees to it" is not a difference, since in my scenerio above, I posited just such a circumstance.

  • Apogee||

    We're going to make you not harm your countrymen

    Do you ever read your own comments? You seem to have quite an inferiority problem.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    Sure they do MNG.

  • Bar Student||

    Cousins are related to me and carry some of my genes. I don't owe my countrymen jack shit.

  • MNG||

    "Cousins are related to me and carry some of my genes."

    Why should that matter morally more than someone sharing citizenship with you?

  • Mr. Obvious||

    because family loyalty trumps tribes which trumps the state. I feel more concern for my parent's well-being than my neighbors. Is this a foreign concept to you?

  • MNG||

    Is it so foriegn that peope will feel concern for their neighbors too?

  • El Foldo||

    Peter Singer wondered about questions like that too, at least until he had to decide what to do about his mother's care when she had end-stage Alzheimer's. It is easy to articulate abstract principles right up to the point they impact those who matter to you. And, of course, if everyone matters to you, then no one does.

  • MNG||

    Of course my position is that everyone does not matter equally. It's normal to have more sentiments for other people because they are your family, your community, or your countrymen. It's the people I'm arguing with here who seem to be saying that it is fine and rational to prefer your third cousin over a stranger but not your countrymen to foriegners.

  • Bar Student||

    There is nothing rational about caring about one stranger over another just because they happen to be born in the same geographical area as me.

  • ||

    If being on the dole pays better than picking fruit, people will be on the dole. Unless, they can't get on the dole, i.e. most illegals. So, when you start letting illegal persons enjoy the benefits of the dole, it skews the whole system.

    My solution of course, is get rid of the dole. You would see American citizens picking fruit and probably picking off a few illegals who are trying to take their fruit picking jobs while they're at it.

  • Justin Cases||

    Or they'll just start robbing you blind. Open borders with no welfare (as advocated here) would also mean people were free to come in to the country and rob you blind. After all, this is where the money / goods and tvs are.

  • Big Fan||

    THEY TOOK UR JERBS

    Funny every time! Thanks.

  • GroundTruth||

    Episiarch: nativism, xenophobia and paranoia. Not just fear of "fer'nerz", but fear that they're here to hurt us.

    Post-9/11 it became socially and politically acceptable to indulge in a sort of narrow-minded bigotry that previously was just a bit too far out there to be allowed in public.

    bin Laden may be dead, and roasting in hell, but I'm sure he's smiling at America's continued self-mutilation in over-reaction to his provocations.

  • MNG||

    I don't think it is just the welfare state concerns, a lot of people just don't want to be around immigrants. Their funny talking and acting ways trouble them. Remember all the hell about customer service being in Spanish? That had nothing to do with the welfare state.

  • ||

    I don't think it is just the welfare state concerns, a lot of people just don't want to be around immigrants. Their funny talking and acting ways trouble them. Remember all the hell about customer service being in Spanish? That had nothing to do with the welfare state.

    We get it, Minge. You prefer codified soft racism over the rednecks bitching in public.

  • ||

    You may be right, but there are plenty of people like me who feel that one crtieria of being a nation is the ability to control your own borders.

    If you can't or won't control your borders and the flow of foreigners into your country, you are just place on a map like Afghanistan.

  • Shorter OS||

    The only thing that separates us from teh savages is our immigration policy.

  • Jim||

    More than a few of us actually don't give a crap about being a nation, or about artificially drawn lines on a map. I know that's not most people, but it may help explain where we're coming from. I don't feel I have any more of a relationship to some stranger in Kansas City than I do to someone in Mexico City, or to the man in the moon, for that matter.

  • ||

    That's why Libertarians will always be a bunch of guys who bitch on internet sites instead of a party that wins elections.

  • Seriously?||

    You know what other party won elections?

  • ||

    Yes. I've seen elections.

  • Amazing||

    You were in Germany in the 1930s!? What was it like?

  • Jim||

    I don't just bitch on the internet; I also bitch in public and over dinner.

  • Jim||

    I can't prove this, of course, but I have a sneaking suspicion that people latch onto the welfare-state as an excuse to oppose people who they would find another reason to oppose even if the welfare-state was totally dismantled.

  • ||

    Exactly. Just like the anti-gay-marriage retards claiming "marriage" means only marriage between a man and a woman.

  • MNG||

    Along those lines the people who object to illegal immigrants because of the welfare state remind more more precisely of the people who object to same sex marriage recognition because of the government benefits that go to married people.

  • Hugh Akston||

    There certainly are people who hide their gay/brown panic under those fig leaves, but don't confuse the argument with the person making it.

  • SIV||

    I can't prove this, of course

    You could've stopped right there.

  • hazeeran||

    Nationalism is tribalism. Illegal immigrants are on the tribe's land doing work without permission from the chiefs, so on, so forth. Individual rights stop at the nation's borders, duh.

  • MNG||

    "Nationalism is tribalism."

    Is it wrong to feel an affinity with and greater affection towards your famiy members? If not, why not towards larger groups like your neighborhood, state or nation?

  • Rwanda's Hutus||

    Great point MNG.

  • MNG||

    I guess during the Olympics or the World Cup you just choose which team to root for by lot. Or wait, I guess you don't choose any team, how collectivist would that be, you root for random players or something.

  • Rwanda's Hutus||

    Yes, because rooting for a random sports team is totally comparable to using the coercive power of government to force me to root for a chosen team.

    Also, as an American I find it disgusting that under your misguided political/world view, you would force me at the point of a gun to root for team USA.

  • MNG||

    The sentiment is the same for the team and for your countrymen in general.

  • hazeeran||

    What are you talking about? I don't care about the Olympics.

  • MNG||

    More interested in the Special version, eh? gotcha.

  • hazeeran||

    Classy with a capital "M"!

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    You're a disgusting human being.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    MNG, Not haz.

  • Germans (Cerca 1920s)||

    Another winning post from MNG.

  • est||

    why feel a greater affinity toward one group of human beings you do not know than another? especially based on some arbitrary political border that you had little to do with assigning. seriously : why should i feel a greater affinity toward some other person living in CA than one living in Canada or Mexico (or anywhere else)? or another white person than a non-white person?

  • MNG||

    "why feel a greater affinity toward one group of human beings you do not know than another?"

    So at Xmas you give the same presents to random strangers than you do your family? Interesting.

  • ||

    In fact, I do. I give the gift of 52% of my income to total strangers through confiscatory taxation, Medicare, SS payments, fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, property taxes, DMV fees, etc.

    Since this prevents me from affording to buy any presents for my family, I can say that total strangers get the same as my family does.*

    *Actually, that's not as true for me as for some other people, by I thought I'd see if I could build a strawman to fight with the one you constructed.

  • Critic||

    Why won't anyone take libertarians seriously?

  • est||

    No but I was comparing the "random strangers" of one group to those of another. Not people that you have a specific bond with.

    Why have a greater affinity toward American strangers than Canadian strangers (or pick any other 2 groups; 1 you belong to and 1 you don't).

  • Virginia||

    Dole: Scare that cheap labor away, gringo.

  • ||

    Georga did something similar.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.....rs-fields/

  • MNG||

    AZ, Georgia and Alabama. Greater police discretion, barring making contracts with illegals, punishments for giving people rides, targeting employers records...It's part of the small government GOP trend donchaknow. Hop aboard the freedom express!

  • ||

    Don't be a TEAM BLUE idiot; your TEAM is just as bad.

  • MNG||

    Sure, but my TEAM doesn't pretend to be part of some libertarian alliance dude.

  • ||

    Agreed, but don't forget we slap down the "Bachmann is libertarian!" crowd all the time here.

  • MNG||

    Eh, about half of you do, about half of the posters here are certainly at least part time TEAM REDDERS. It's them I'm poking with that stick.

  • Tman||

    What a load of bullshit. Conservative team red gets smacked down just as much if not more than team blue.

    The difference is that there is no room at all for libertarians within socialist groups because you oppose free markets.

    Conservatives are at least realistic about it, even if socially they are retarded.

  • MNG||

    To wit.

  • Tman||

    To witless?

    What are you saying MNG? Progressive liberal ideals are a failed ideology and the 20th century is littered with the results of those failed attempts to implement those policies.

    Free minds and Free markets -the libertarian ideals, the ones that built this country- are the only ideas proven to lift people out of the poverty that your ideology created.

    Conservatives understand the economic part, even if they don't get the social part. Your side understands neither since you want to oppose socially liberal order through centralized government fiat.

  • Tman||

    typo= "Impose" socially liberal order

  • MNG||

    Libertarians often argue that government has grown progressively more interventionist this century then often turn around and point to how our nation doing great this century proves the failure of progressive ideology. Or something.

  • Tman||

    our nation doing great this century proves the failure of progressive ideology. Or something.

    Captain strawman strikes again!

    You don't need to compare the failed progressive ideologies of the 20th century to anything to show how big of a failure it was. Between Mao and Stalin there are enough graves to make a solid point regardless of what you compare it to.

  • MNG||

    How was Mao "progressive?" Progressives defer to techn-cratic experts (this is why they get the charge of elitism so much), not much of that going on in the Cultural Revolution.

    In other words, you don't know wtf you are talking about. Might want to return your Beck U degree.

  • Tman||

    I love it when liberals try and disown their own history.

    Your denial-ism, it's so TASTY.

  • MNG||

    I don't know how to tell you this, but most liberals do disavow Maoism dude.

  • MNG||

    "Conservatives understand the economic part"

    Especially the ones that want to intervent in hiring and contracting with illegal immigrants right?

    Perhaps you've gone up from part time to 3/4 timer.

  • Tman||

    Especially the ones that want to intervent in hiring and contracting with illegal immigrants right

    Conservatives don't want people to break the law. Hiring illegal immigrants is against the law. I differ with most conservatives in that I want to make it so all you have to do to be a legal immigrant in this country is to show up at the door and get stamped -wider gates, taller fences- but until that illegal hiring is illegal hiring.

    I deal with the fallout of illegal immigrants screwing up someone else's life because they use stolen SS#'s to get hired. Condoning illegal employment procedures isn't the answer.

    Threatening to shoot them isn't the answer either, by the way.

  • OO||

    libtoids cant manage free markets since they've no answer for collusion, dumping, & other anti-competitive practices

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    @ OO

    Name one company that FITS the definition of Monopoly (Was able to lower prices, drive out competitors and raise prices as a result) that has ever existed in a free market.

    Do the same for 'dumping' as well*.

    *I'll give you hint about dumping: It's a politically made up term that has no place in economics.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    Half MNG? You really believe that half the posters here are 'team redders'?

    I can name all of the regulars on one hand, and some of them are a mixed bag more than straight team red cheerleaders.

  • MNG||

    You can count yourself in there dude, you're not fooling anyone.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    You're a fucking idiot if you believe that. As a former Conservative I loath Republicans in many ways more than I loath team blue and have stated such many time here at H&R.

  • MNG||

    "As a former Conservative"

    Since yesterday evening?

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. Maybe John?

    I've been calling myself a libertarian since the early days of the Bush presidency.

    I'd be interested to hear what (in your mind) makes me a team red libertarian. I oppose all of bushe's (now obama's) wars, loath Michele Bachmann (and most of the other repub candidates, save Johnson and sometimes Paul). Hell, I've been vocally skeptical of the Tea Party around here.

    You've got you head up your ass apparently. You might want to see a doctor.

  • Sir Roderick Glossop||

    If you don't agree with MNG then you're Team Red. It's a fairly easy concept.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    Appearantly.

  • OO||

    MWG - do u seriously allege that NO anti-competitive practices can occur in a so-called "free" market?

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    "do u seriously allege that NO anti-competitive practices can occur in a so-called "free" market?"

    Not the 1s u listed.

  • MNG||

    Don't have to be able to read to get knighted I see...

    "MNG|7.13.11 @ 12:49PM|#
    Eh, about half of you do"

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    Still waiting for you to show me why I'm a scary republican schill MNG.

  • MNG||

    You are not in the least scary...

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    "You are not in the least scary..."

    So IOW, given your lack of evidence, I'll take it you admit to being full of shit by accusing me of being a team red libertarian.

  • Patrick||

    Yawn. I live in Georgia. Property taxes are relatively high in the Atlanta metro counties. This fall we will just now have the opportunity vote for legal Sunday alcohol sales. Also, I'm pretty sure BJs are still defined as "sodomy" and technically illegal.

    So altogether now class... GOP rule =/= small government.

  • SIV||

    Also, I'm pretty sure BJs are still defined as "sodomy" and technically illegal.

    And we don't wear shoes, smoke corn cob pipes and drink untaxed likker from crockery jugs with "XXXs" on them.

  • ||

    SIV, I think you're confusing Georgia with Arkansas.

    (Not @ SIV) Did anyone click on the link? Some crops are rotting in GA due to the law. That's actually why I made the post. People's postions aside, there are consequences to these laws. Pass the laws if you will, but don't bitch if you pay a higer price for food, or if a local community goes belly up.

  • GILMORE||

    I think there's a useful chart that could be done that would show the historical inverse correlatation between the state of the nation's economy and the degree of race/furriner'-baiting engaged in by politicians.

    Meaning, the deeper the country is in an economic toilet and politicians are flailing helplessly to pretend they're doing something about it...the more frequently they will try and change the subject to "hey~! Everybody hates mexicans right?! I HATE MEXICANS EVEN MORE THAN YOU! Seriously! Vote for me!"

    You can usually tell who's to blame for our collective misery by the guy who points the most fingers. Sort of the "who smelt it, dealt it" rule.

    It sure as hell ain't mexicans what fucked this whole country up.

  • ||

    Go ahead and do it. Be sure to include California where illegal immigrants are welcomed with open arms and food stamps, while the state goes broke.

  • GILMORE||

    Id love to but the data i see so far doesnt' suggest immigrants have anything to do with California's problems, which are fiscal...not a consequence of Teh Mexicans Takin Teh Jobses Away

    Here's a spreadsheet for you

    https://spreadsheets0.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?hl=en&key=t0OXfvdC4UYYoTKOqS8sbYA&hl=en#gid=0

    On the second tab you can actually see the real actual negative impact, which is the depression of wages in many lower-skilled areas. In real terms, it seems that more Mexicans means Cheaper Services, and less wages for Real American. But not so much fewer jobs

    https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AqN9kHKZYM-OdHRCZTJ2dmpHclNQWElnd1JEbDlzUUE&hl=en#gid=7

    The jobs are the usual suspects=

    Automobile mechanics
    Carpenters
    Construction laborers
    Cooks, variously defined
    Farm workers
    Gardeners and groundskeepers
    Housekeepers, maids, butlers, stewards, and lodging quarters
    Janitors
    Registered nurses
    Computer software developers
    Truck, delivery, and tractor drivers
    Waiter/waitress
    Hairdressers and cosmetologists

    The overall "immigrant"/foreign born ratio of employed in California has been flat since 2005.

    This is more revealing, esse.

    http://www.google.com/publicda.....l=en&dl=en

    If you have some magic theory about how it was the Mexicans that made Californians rack up all that debt over the last 20yrs, go ahead and present it.

    That "Google Public Data Explorer" thing is the bomb, btw. Statisterrific.

  • SIV||

    It sure as hell ain't mexicans what fucked this whole country up.

    No, but the policies that fucked this country up encouraged mass Mexican migration.The huge malinvestment in real estate development/construction for example.

  • GILMORE||

    ...and now we've got all these dishwashers and gardners and construction workers *and theyre RUIINING TEH CULTUR!!*

    You have to forgive me: I live in Brooklyn. Mexicans cause me no grief. Spoiled yuppie 24yr olds from the midwest who infest manhattan?

    I say send *them* to Mexico.

  • ||

    Maybe a swap of some order would do.

  • GILMORE||

    "I'll give you 2:1, and you can take their iphones as a bonus for bulk deals!"

  • ||

    I'm in NYC, so we are on the same side of the trade.

    Anyone in TX want some yuppies?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    He shouldn't worry. The Fed and the Feds are doing everything they can to ensure that no Mexican will ever want to accept the US dollar as compensation. Problem solved.

  • OO||

    but they'll take amerios & like it

  • Tony||

    Of course undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare of any kind--it's their US citizen children than the nativists have an issue with. Of course if you go by the constitution that argument amounts to "they're brown, they don't deserve my goodies."

  • PIRS||

    Why does anyone of any color deserve money that someone does not voluntarily choose to give them?

    I am not a nativist but I DO oppose welfare, including for native born Americans. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for most of these so-called "illegal immigrants" - from my experience they tend to be very hard workers.

  • Tony||

    Unfortunately that makes you more principled than most people who rant against welfare. For decades there's always been a racial component--its' not their own benefits tea partiers want taken away, it's the ones that go to those people. I know this is too far afield for the crowd here, but it's still true.

  • ||

    you are so cute when you project Tony. Liberals have spent the past 20 years focusing on the "other" be it Rush Limbaugh, corporations, evangelicals or Sarah Palin.

  • Tony||

    And haven't they suffered enough?

  • sarcasmic||

    Always the accusation of racism.

  • PIRS||

    "For decades there's always been a racial component"

    [Citation needed]

  • Tony||

    A poll.

    Only 35 percent of those who strongly approve of the tea party agreed that blacks are hardworking, compared with 55 percent of those who strongly disapprove of the tea party. On whether blacks were intelligent, 45 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 59 percent of the tea-party opponents. And on the issue of whether blacks were trustworthy, 41 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of the tea-party opponents.

  • ||

    So you are telling me 41% of liberals think blacks are dumb and lazy. Good to know.

  • PIRS||

    I would really like to know how they determined if someone was a TEA Party member, they certainly did not poll me.

    In any case, I was questioning your statement that opposition to government welfare benefits was racially motivated.

  • Tony||

    They certainly did not poll me.

    Ah the perpetual cry. They asked whether the person favored the tea party or not. Pretty straightforward.

    To attach these data with my claim, go find a poll that asks tea partiers what they think of medicare.

  • PIRS||

    Again, what I was challenging you on was your claim that opposition to government welfare was motivated by racism. You have not provided a citation for that.

  • Tony||

    Call it a hunch.

  • RyanXXX||

    A poll asking if "Black People are intelligent" is itself racist. Even a "yes" answer would reveal a racialist, collectivist attitude.

    Was it phrased as a yes-or-no? Was there a "it depends on the individual" option?

    By taking a poll like that seriously, you reveal your own RETARDATION, Tony

  • Murray Rothbard||

    Well, one vital and recent social change has been not only truly revolutionary but has occurred at almost dizzying speed. Namely: Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.

  • PIRS||

    I notice that whoever posted this did not give any reference with which others could verify it.

  • Murray Rothbard||

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    No need to PIRS. Didn't you read the comment.
    It's a 'home truth' 'which everyone, and he mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private'.

  • Justin Cases||

    Perhaps the nativist argument boils down to the fact that parents and grandparents and great grandparents have worked hard to make the country a better place and paid taxes for hundreds of years, so you know, you might be inclined to give them a break when they find themselves without a job and need some support.

  • Jim||

    If that's true, then it puts a lie to all those who loudly proclaim that they're not against all immigration, just illegal immigration.

    After all, the lawful immigrant doesn't have any ancestors who worked to make this country anything.

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    "If that's true, then it puts a lie to all those who loudly proclaim that they're not against all immigration, just illegal immigration."

    ...but we already knew this, didn't we.

  • ||

    "Of course undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare of any kind"

    Uh, you haven't been to CA lately have you?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Of course undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare of any kind--it's their US citizen children than the nativists have an issue with.


    Depends on which welfare we are talking about. Receiving emergency care by government mandate IS welfare, for instance.

    Of course if you go by the constitution that argument amounts to "they're brown, they don't deserve my goodies."


    Could you please point out to where in the Constitution such an argument is made?

  • MWG (Not MNG)||

    "Could you please point out to where in the Constitution such an argument is made?"

    I think he was just talking out his ass.

  • ||

    It's in the punctuation of the Preamble.

  • Tony||

    So would you prefer a society in which people are denied medical care because of their citizenship status? Which is to say, immigration agents in every ER? Or a mandate that doctors inquire about immigration status before they treat? Some paradise.

    I'm talking about the constitutional basis for citizenship.

  • ||

    Okey-Dokey then.

  • ||

    Not nice, but hey, let's ask what really matters: will he vote to defund ObamaCare? Priorities, people, priorities!

  • ||

    threadjack, but the comments to this McArdle post about the AMA thinking fat kids should be taken away from their parents are unbelievable.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....ts/241877/

  • Warty||

    It's also kind of creepy--the sort of thing that gives paternalism a very, very bad name.

    Doesn't it already have a plenty bad name?

  • ||

    Not to the readers of The Atlantic.

  • Warty||

    Wasn't The Atlantic founded as an abolitionist magazine?

    Also, I have half a mind to troll that thread by pointing out the racial implications of stealing fat kids from their fat parents.

  • ||

    Yes it was. But you have to understand that the abolitionists of yesteryear have morphed into the big government nannies of today.

    And that is a great idea. Their heads will explode.

  • dudeinAL||

    Like none of you have ever had a dumb-ass politician from your state shoot his mouth off. Anyway, what do you expect from a guy named "Mo"?

  • Warty||

    I still miss Jim Trafficant.

  • T||

    I almost bought a 'Free Traficant' shirt at one point. He was quality political theatre.

  • J_L_B||

    It would help to differ between the process of employer X wanting to bring employee Y from another country. That process exists; that it may be cumbersome, full of red tape, and take forever is another issue.

    What angers most people is employee Y deciding, "hey today I want to go live and work in the US", without the invite of any employer for any time of job.

  • kbolino||

    That process exists; that it may be cumbersome, full of red tape, and take forever is another issue.

    The two issues are separable only because your time and capital isn't on the line. "The process exists" is a canard; if it takes that much effort, then in effect it does not exist.

    What angers most people is employee Y deciding, "hey today I want to go live and work in the US", without the invite of any employer for any time of job.

    I definitely think employers recruiting for illegal migrant laborers in Mexico is the way to go. I'm sure it will be real popular with the proles.

  • ||

    I say let them all come into this country. That is as long as they know and accept that should they have fat children, Child Services will be removing them from their homes.

  • ||

    I live in southeast Alabama. Chicken farms are huge business here as are chicken processing plants. The biggest reasons I have heard from growers and processing plant management for hiring the hispanics is that they are reliable and work their asses off everyday. It isnt about wages as much as productivity.

    Oh, and what a joy it is to once again have one of our esteemed legislators show that ignorance and hate arent just for po-folks anymore.

  • ||

    I say let them all come into this country. That is as long as they know and accept that should they have fat children, Child Services will be removing them from their homes.

  • ||

    Odd. Double posts and deletes my name and email adress.

  • ||

    I don't have a clue where to look for such data. Can anybody point me toward statistics about the number of hispanics working the low wage jobs bothe before and after 1965? I am curious if they are actually just doing the jobs americans dont have to do since then.

  • ||

    Granted it's a small sampling, but in 1965 Minneapolis, there were no latinos working the fast food joints and now they're almost the only ones. Same with roofers and custodians. So, while I am glad that thy are here (and get pissed when MN takes steps to get them booted after years on the job) they clearly took jobs that Americans were doing.

  • GregorySmith3||

    Illegal is illegal, if I can't exceed the speed limit without paying a fine, then what the hell is wrong with enforcing immigration laws? I am sick and tired of the Obama-lovers and their illegal-alien friends.

  • MWG||

    Hey everybody it's Gregoooo! Welcome back buddy!

  • ||

    And I'll say the same when breathing is made illegal without a permit.

    You're not a real libertarian unless you understand that unless you get the right permits you can't do anything.

    Especially them dirty fucking beaners.

    ANCHORZBABIEZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Max Stirner||

    This is why nationalism needs to die. I like how so many "libertarians" can argue that drug laws and gun laws are abuse, and then argue with a straight face that illegal immigration is unjust jsut because it's against the law. Since when was a law moral justification for the discrimination against those that were merely born in another country? So many people become bootlickers when it comes to Mexicans. If someone is willing to work and someone is willing to give them a job, then no rights have been violated.

    Of course, the only authentic libertarian position is fascism.

  • ||

    Black slaves, sharecroppers, Chinese laundry workers and Mexican day laborers have been doing the work that white people have considered themselves too good for since the founding of Jamestown Colony.

  • ||

    DON'T BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND..?

    Now imminent is for all Americans citizens and permanent aliens to stand by their own unemployed workers, and direct all of Congress to enact the Legal Workforce Act, H.R. 2164. Congress will be recess in August so this law must vote on, before the ending of this month. We cannot afford to delay this law, which will make businesses obey this law governing the hiring of illegal immigrants nationwide. Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) who authored this new piece of legislation must have it before the House of Representatives for a floor vote, to make it mandatory for every company to cross-check every new potential employee, to see if they have a right to work in these United States. With 13 million jobless Americans looking to be hired, when it is estimated that more than 8 million foreigners who are presently in illegally employed.

    CBS News divulged a disturbing survey that millions of Black Americans are living with depression-era unemployment rates and their only choice is government support. Unemployment rates are high among almost every class of worker, especially among Citizens, legal residence, of Blacks, Hispanics, and teenagers who are hurting the most. This is a patriotic chance to help your fellow unemployed countryman by Calling House Leadership NOW Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for the "Speaker of the House's office" or the "House Majority Leader's office.

    This is a very distasteful situation but birthright citizens and legal non-citizen individuals have a right to be employed over foreign nationals. You can also call the direct lines by dialing:

    * House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) -- 202-225-0600
    * House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) -- 202-225-4000

    The 1986 Immigration amnesty cause and effect was a 6 million plus overflow of foreign nations, that the law culminated in fraudulent applications and a failure of the government to allow many to achieve citizenship, without full FBI criminal background checks. This was the inception of CHAIN MIGRATION, as family members poured in through the naturalized citizen. After a time thousands of parents were no longer supported, that lead them to the welfare lines, SSI and Medicaid and Medicare, without previously paying into the Social Security system. In the last 25 years America has seen craftily hidden small amnesties, further Chain Migrations, Instant citizenship for babies of illegal aliens and the outlay of tens of billions of dollars for the support of all these people. Legal! Yes! But it must come to an abrupt end, as we have now racked up $14.5 Trillion dollars in uncontrollable debt.

    Both parties must carry the can for this reckless use of taxpayers’ money and the extortion of the IRS, literary stealing money from your payroll check. Those who enter our country illegally can never pay their fair share of taxes, as most are education illiterate and although they might buy commodities, pay rent or a car. Most of the money is returned in the way of child refund taxes or federal refunds. This is of course if they are taxed at all, or are paid below the table. According to the expert analysis by the Heritage Foundation $113 Billion dollars annually go to supply illegal aliens with welfare, food stamps at just the federal level. Billions more dollars are depleted from State coffers, that also go to supporting illegal aliens and their extended families. Any new Amnesty that is being clandestinely being debated behind closed doors carries a massive incredulous burden for taxpayers of 2.6 Trillion dollars.

    ANY FORM OF AMNESTY, (IMMIGRATION REFORM), INCLUDING THE DREAM ACT IS A PRECURSOR OF YET ANOTHER VOLUME CHAIN MIGRATION

    Our education performance is failing grimly from the millions of illegal aliens who unable to speak English, taking attention from overworked teachers in overcrowded schools. Emergency rooms too are subject to daily crowds of uninsured foreign nationals and their many children with the consequences of hospital closing across the Border States of unpaid medical fees. These are mostly unfunded mandates caused by Liberal judges, prior to these mass populations of people pouring through the undermanned border regions. Unless the American people vote Obama out of office, re-seat the Senate with Tea Party members, our highways will become even further congested. The illegal aliens criminals coming here will spiral, adding to a crammed prison system. Go and really check websites as NumbersUSA, Judicial Watch, California for Population Stabilization and hundreds of grass root organizations, who see the 2012 election that will for evermore change this country into a second rate nation; unless we vote for the TEA PARTY of moderation.

    This once again is a projection of the non-profit conservative think tank of the Heritage foundation. This certainly makes absolutely no logical sense to the majority of the American people, unless you are a Liberal Progressive or far to the left Democrat. Stop this absurdity by joining "The Real Peoples" Party, the moderate Conservatives, and the US TEA PARTY. It maybe our only chance to cut off Obama's uncontrolled spending fiasco. In 2012 this will either be a further nightmare of”Tax and spend" by the infestation of Liberal extremists in the Democratic Party. Or the Party of moderation to lighten the load of taxpayers, cut off the purse strings in Washington's. The poverty of other countries is not our concern, as unfortunately many nations are dictatorships. It is time to fend for our own, as America cannot afford to import impoverished people. Only the TEA PARTY leadership has the guts to really seal our borders, track visa over-stays and introduce every tool of enforcement to encourage illegal aliens to stay home and change their own countries policies.

    As for agriculture in America? The farmers do not pay their fair share, to cover illegal alien workers. Its easy for farmers to dump their hires at the steps of the emergency room, that includes wifes and children. Just as easy is to place children in the schools, with no consideration of the consequences to taxpayers. Then those families who break away and move to the main stream of US workers at the low spectrum end with little or no education, are supplied amply with Social services. Babies born here automatically become citizens and families use this as a foothold to stay here and well able to live of a $600.00 payment for each child, plus welfare in food stamps and low income housing. Its hard to substantiate giving free hand outs to illegal alien households, when States curb livable cash payments to senior citizens who must exist on fixed incomes.

    Even while Washington debates raising the Federal debt ceiling, the majority of States are combating their own worse nightmare of financial deficits. Taxpayers should check the connection between the rising tax increases and illegal immigration. California is classed as a Sanctuary state and being ground into the ground, by Liberals in Sacramento who find no sacrifice is enough, to keep taxing its residents to support the ever increasing population of illegal immigrants. Los Angeles Supervisor Michael Antonovich told reporters in 2009: “When you add this to $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year — not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education.” In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens

    Attn: Today, more than ever before illegal aliens are violating our the integrity of "Citizens Only" federal, State, County and Municipal elections. It is shameful that in our future 2012 Presidential election, we must have oversight from mediators, to check those who are registering through official picture ID. Election commissions can no longer gaurantee that our most sacred right of the Citizens vote has not been compromised.ACORN, that is supposedly dismantled has reappeared under another entity who in previous registrations violated federal law, and criminal reviews being conducted by 12 States. To learn more about rampant voter fraud type into Google Heritage Foundation, voter fraud and be made aware of this growing disturbing trend.example, During the congressional races in Southern California between Republican Brian Bilbray and Democrat Francine Busby, Busby was secretly recording telling a full house of Latino illegal and legal immigrants that they didn't need "papers." It was obvious from this meaning, that she was referring to identification in voting. Voter Fraud by illegal aliens up to now has been ignored by government and the media. But New York, New Jersey, Texas, Colorado are under strict official scrutiny at this time.

    AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THOSE OF NATURALIZED STATUS SHOULD CONTACT THEIR LEADERS AND DEMAND SERIOUS OVERSIGHT OF ELECTIONS AND INTRODUCE A OFFICIAL VOTER ID THAT LIBERAL CRITICS ARE AGAINST.

  • ||

    In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens

    Citation please?

  • GILMORE||

    File under: law of diminishing returns.

  • ||

    Today I learned that many Americans who call themselves libertarians are actually nationalistic, authoritarian conservatives and that some American utilitarians apparently don't count brown people as people.

  • MWG||

    You must be new here.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement