Robert Higgs Gives Us Something To Consider
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Stopped reading when he said hate.
So it's bigotry and hate to want to have a measure of control over your borders and immigration.
Is that just for the US or does that go for the great many countries that actually have and do control theirs?
What a deep thinker.
Is that just for the US or does that go for the great many countries that actually have and do control theirs?
What a deep thinker.
I have no hate for Mexicans, Hondurans, or Haitians whatsoever. I have seething contempt for politicians who've allowed what's going on to happen in the name of Multiculturalism.
“OK, let’s SUPPOSE you hate Mexicans ...”. That implies a hypothetical. His point is whether you hate foreigners from shithole countries or not if you demand the government do the things currently demanded of it by nativists you will create a situation that will lead to a full fledged police state. It will be inevitable. You think a surveillance state will voluntarily restrict itself to foreigners? That’s wishful thinking and very naive. That’s not what governments do. They all find reasons to expand the scope of their power. And they all say it’s for our own protection until they become so powerful they have no reason to pretend any longer. Actually Dr. Higgs has presented us with a very deep thought, and one we should pay heed to.
Hypothetically, we’re already living in a surveillance state or dangerously close to it anyway. I think it’s naive to think otherwise. I get that with border fundiding comes the potential for abuse. That’s only because we distrust our politicians and federal bureaucracy. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I say get both under control: Our security and out of control government.
this open borders lunacy is a major roadblock to libertarianism, which is a shame.
Would you prefer that libertarians abandon our principle of individual liberty and become like liberals and conservatives?
What that dick is worried about has already happened.
This would've been relevant prior to lil Bush.
This would've been relevant prior to lil Bush.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Higgs is a dick because he’s concerned that we’ll be creating a police state? He’s a dick because he doesn’t understand we already live in a police state?
open borders appears to be a neoliberal / neoconservative thing. votes for one and labor for the other. how is individual liberty served by this madness?
If you owned a business and had a job opening, and I needed a job and qualified for your opening, and you wanted to hire me, and I wanted to work for you, would you consider it madness if the government threatened you and me with incarceration because it had passed a law forbidding you from hiring me? What is the different principle if it wasn't me but instead it was Luis from Honduras?
If the government instituted procedures to spy on your business, secretly access your business records, phone calls, e-mails, read your hard mail, track the movement of your business vehicles, stop your vehicles at a "checkpoint," demand that you and your employees have your "papers" with you at all times and present them to any law enforcement agent whenever demanded, would you feel violated, threatened? Would you worry that you were living in a police state? Would you consider your concern to be madness? Would you think your individual liberty had been taken from you? These are all things the government either does now, or is proposing it should do. All in the name of protecting us. That is the price Higgs is talking about. That is the price many of you seem willing to pay.
Nothing in his second paragraph hasn't happened. You seem to be OK with that. At least that's what you seem to be saying. What am I missing?
He implies that our information gathering can be can be more obtrusive and complete.
The only way that's possible is to read your mind. Which the predictive programs do for a vast majority.
The only way that's possible is to read your mind. Which the predictive programs do for a vast majority.
Well, I'm having a hell of a time reading your mind. I still don't understand whether you are OK with our surveillance state. Are you OK with Big Brother? You say he's real, he exists right now. Do you want him fully unleashed? I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to figure out what is your point.
I'm saying this moron is covering no new ground and makes false assumptions.
What did you want me to hear when I read it, that's what's important, right?
What did you want me to hear when I read it, that's what's important, right?
OK, got it. He’s both a dick and a moron. His concern about our becoming a police state is not new. Because we are already a police state. So, since we are already a police state and he, being the moron that he is, doesn’t realize we’re already a police state, since he worries about our future as a country, he’s making false assumptions. That’s what you heard when you read it. Right?
What I wanted you to hear was his belief that the policies that nativists are demanding the government put in place will come with a very heavy price on our freedom. And will inevitably result in the total loss of our freedom. And perhaps we should rethink what we want the government to do for us before we find we’re having it done to us. That’s what I heard when I read it, and I stupidly assumed it was so clear that everyone else would see it.
I admit he would have been better served if he had been dispassionate in his presentation. The way he wrote it just served to offend some people who had an emotional reaction and made it harder for them to accept what he said. In that regard he hurt his case. However, if one could put the emotional reaction aside and listen to his point logically, I think they would see merit in what he said.
It's basically like he just forecast the last housing collapse.
And I'm supposed to backtrack to him.
And I'm supposed to backtrack to him.
I don't care if a wall is ever built. I do want our laws to be enforced.
Very interesting article. I have been insulted many times on this board, but no one has ever called me a liberal. That would be an insult almost too hard to bear.
Haha I hope this is how you meant it as the article wasn't directed toward you. Just wanted to add to the broader discussion.
FFS
Your first paragraph is a hoot. The difference is Luis violated the law by entering the U.S. illegally. You might not like the law, but it's the law and should be enforced (or changed through proper Constitutional means). Here's my analogy: Joe and Bob are CPA's, both with vast experience as controllers. I'd like to hire Bob to work for my bank, but the Treasury department says no, because as a young man Bob was involved in counterfeiting. That doesn't seem fair to me. Both are qualified, but I can't hire Bob because the government made a law proscribing me from it.
You do understand that immigration has been limited, at times severely, throughout the majority of the history of this country?
Your first paragraph is a hoot. The difference is Luis violated the law by entering the U.S. illegally. You might not like the law, but it's the law and should be enforced (or changed through proper Constitutional means). Here's my analogy: Joe and Bob are CPA's, both with vast experience as controllers. I'd like to hire Bob to work for my bank, but the Treasury department says no, because as a young man Bob was involved in counterfeiting. That doesn't seem fair to me. Both are qualified, but I can't hire Bob because the government made a law proscribing me from it.
Yes, I do realize immigration has historically been limited. And I don't agree with that policy.
As regard my first paragraph please explain the principle involved in denying me the right to hire anyone I want, even someone from Honduras. Saying he's here illegally does not address the principle. Either I own my company or I don't. If the government gets to tell me who I can and cannot hire, then it seems to me the government owns my company, not me. What is the principle that forbids me from hiring Luis from Honduras?
As regards your analogy I don't agree that you should be denied hiring anyone you want, even Bob. By the same token I would find it completely legitimate for your competitor, Fred, to let everyone know you hired a counterfeiter. Then your potential customers would be fully informed about the company they choose to deal with.
You do not deal in reality. The principle is Luis is here in the U.S. (assuming the federal government uniformly enforced the law in line with times past) illegally. It's irrelevant whether you like it or not. It absolutely addresses the rational principle (he is here in violation of the law, so he is ineligible to work), however you choose to pursue irrational ideals. Having a border and protecting that border in alignment with the law of the land, is the very essence of what being a nation is all about.
So, if the government won't allow me to hire an 11 year old child for a menial task for 30 hours a week that the child is capable of doing does that mean "the government owns my company"?
If the government wouldn't allow me to bring in the late Osama bin Laden (when he was still with us) as a motivational coach does that mean "the government owns my company"?
If it’s your company, if you own it, you get to decide what you do with it. That’s what ownership means. It’s your property. If a government bureaucrat steps in and begins to make the decisions on who you hire, then the government, for all practical purposes, owns it, not you. That means if you want to hire Osama bin Laden as far as I’m concerned be my guest. Just don’t expect me to give you my business.
The same goes for the 11 year old. Of course his parents need to be involved in the decision making. If you have a task he is capable and willing to perform at a wage you both agree upon I wish you both well.
By using the “illegal” argument you are skirting the principle of ownership. If I determine Luis is the right man for the job, and Luis believes it’s the right job for him, then the government should have no say in the matter. You say this argument does not deal in reality, and you’re exactly right. I know that reality means I’ll be fined or jailed if I hire an illegal. My argument goes to the way “it ought to be,” not the way it is.
Do you feel that anyone in the world has a right to live in the US? Should we not be a nation at all? What would it look like if we allowed the entire population of Afghanistan to emigrate to Wyoming? Would Wyoming suddenly resemble the dysfunctional failed state that Afghanistan is now or would they leave all of their tribal beliefs behind and form a utopian state for all to behold?
Ownership of a company doesn't give you absolute carte blanche to do with it what you want and never has at any point in history however badly you like to fantasize that it does. I'm not skirting any principle, but you seem to be skirting the boundaries of sanity, let alone rationality.
Last edited:
Medic, I’m speaking of things the way I think they ought to be, not way things are. I was earlier accused of being unrealistic, which I admitted; but wow, your scenario takes unreality to a whole new level!
Here’s how I’ll put it. Philosophical anarchists like myself are constantly besieged with possible outcomes in an anarchist society. Warlords would take over, rapists would run rampant, bad guys would rob and beat people up. We need someone or some thing to keep the bad guys in check. Society would be in total chaos without government. I say those things might happen. Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t. Nobody knows for sure because an anarchist society has never existed. It might be heaven on earth! And it might be pure hell. Nobody knows for sure.
But one thing we all know for sure is that institutions of government - of very stripe, from madman dictator to representative democracy - have led the human race into a constant state of chaos, war, concentration camps, internment camps, mass executions, forced starvation of entire peoples, genocide, imprisonment, torture, and on and on and on. Those things have happened and are happening now, every single day, perpetrated by every government that exists. That’s reality. I prefer my non-real vision of the way things ought to be.
I’m well aware that I’m virtually alone in the way I think, that nothing I say will change everyone’s mind. Maybe it will reach one or two people who will carry the torch. That’s why I so obnoxiously keep saying it.
As Bill O’Reilly used to say: I’ll give you the last word.
OK, I lied. Read this essay by Don Boudreaux. It’s not about this issue per se, but generalized what Imean To day much better that I ever could. Let th market handle it!
http://cafehayek.com/2018/01/freeman-essay-69-simplistic-answers.html
And hence my question to you. Should the US have open borders allowing anyone in the world who has a desire to live here to live here?
What a l
Not my original material, but if we have no borders, we have no country. F'K the damned illegals; do it right!
Not my original material, but if we have no borders, we have no country. F'K the damned illegals; do it right!
I have not ignored or evaded your question. I just don't know how to answer unless it involves about a 30,000 word essay. Let me leave it at this: you are asking an anarchist, someone who does not believe there should be borders, whether he thinks America should have open borders. How am I supposed to answer? Of course I want people to be free to move about as they please. So, knee jerk reaction is yes I want open borders. But the subject is much more nuanced than a knee jerk reaction.
If you literally do not believe there should be any borders, how can your position that the U.S. should absolutely have open borders be nuanced?
That's the point. I think open borders should prevail throughout the world, not just America. That leaves room for a lot of nuance, and I don't have time right now to continue. We can meet for drinks sometime and talk about it.
Similar threads
