Amnestia Approaches
Vanderboegh sends this item:
***
El Piolín Interviews President Obama
February 18, 2009 · 5 Comments
Yesterday, President Obama was a guest on “El Piolín por la manana” (on of the nation’s popular radio shows that boast an enormous Latin@ following). Obama and the First Lady were on his show several times during the campaign and yesterday he made the commitment to continue to have a regular presence from the Administration on the show.
During the interview, Obama pledged his support of the Latin@ and immigrant community and his continuing commitment to fixing our broken immigration system. You can read the full transcript after the jump, but here is a good highlight:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I’ve said every time I’ve been on the show, Piolín, we’re going to make sure that we begin the process of dealing with the immigration system that’s broken. We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens, like you did, that they are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.
And then we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform. Now, you know, we need to get started working on it now. It’s going to take some time to move that forward, but I’m very committed to making it happen. And we’re going to be convening leadership on this issue so that we can start getting that legislation drawn up over the next several months.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 17, 2009
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT
BY EDDIE “PIOLÍN” SOTELO, RADIO
Via Telephone
1:48 P.M. MST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello.
Q Hello.
THE PRESIDENT: Who am I speaking with?
Q Piolín.
THE PRESIDENT: Piolín, my friend, this is President Barack Obama.
Q How are you doing? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: I am doing good. I promised you that I would be on the show when I was President, and here I am on the show. (Laughter.)
Q You promised me that you were going to be in the studio –
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven’t gone to Los Angeles yet, but I should get credit for keeping my promise this way.
Q Oh, yes, yes. (Applause.) Yes, but we’re waiting for you because we are celebrating together. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: How have you been?
Q Great, great, Mr. President. We have Mr. President Barack Obama with us. And thank you, Mr. President, for taking the time to speak with us today. And you make history — we’re so proud. I know you are the President for everybody.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, you know, it was wonderful being on your program when I was running. And now I want to make sure that we continue to reach out because you have so many listeners and I think that it’s so important that the Latino community, the Spanish-speaking community, continues to stay involved in politics.
We’ve got a very tough economy and we just signed a stimulus bill today that’s going to put people back to work and provide health care to people who don’t have it. We signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Now legal immigrants are able to get health care for the first time, which is something that the Latino community had been arguing for, for almost a decade.
And so I think we’re making real progress, but we’re going to have to keep on making sure that all of you are involved as much as possible.
Q Mr. President, you know, I just want to begin by saying now, today is an exciting today. Congratulations on your accomplishment.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q And how soon can we expect to see the positive effect of the stimulus package?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that right away what you’re going to start seeing is, first of all, states and local governments, they’re going to be able to keep people in their jobs. There was — the budgets are so bad at the state level that people who were teaching in schools, or police officers, or firefighters, a lot of people were going to be fired from their state jobs. And so we’re going to be able to keep those jobs open.
We’re also going to be making investments and rebuilding roads and bridges and school construction, and that’s going to put a lot of people to work, especially people who are in the construction industries. With the housing market in such bad shape, they’ve been out of work. Now, hopefully, some of these construction jobs will become available again. It will probably take six months to a year before we start seeing a big impact, but at least we’ve now gotten the process moving so that we can start doing a lot better than we’ve been doing over the last several months.
Q So that means, Mr. President, that now that you have signed the stimulus package, I’m going to receive a raise, a pay raise?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, the — you, Piolín, are already making so much money that you probably won’t get a pay raise. (Laughter.) You know, but for people who aren’t as rich as you, I think that they’ve got a good chance of getting help –
Q I’ve been playing, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Well, and the other thing is, you know, the — a lot of people who’ve been laid off of their jobs, they need unemployment insurance. And what this bill does is it makes sure that they keep on getting unemployment insurance. It means that they have a easier time keeping their health care, even if they’ve lost their job. So it’s really going to provide a lot of relief to people who need it.
Q Mr. President, how will the stimulus package help persons who are losing their homes, and how will it benefit those who want to buy a home for the first time?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s actually a separate piece of legislation that we’re going to be announcing tomorrow. And the key there is to make sure that we work with the banks and the homeowners to try to reduce the monthly payments that they make. And so I’ll be announcing that program, but it’s something that should help a lot of families who are making their payments, but are having a much, much tougher time because home values have gone down so drastically. So we’ll have an entire separate home program — housing program that we’re going to be announcing tomorrow.
Q Thanks a lot, Mr. President. We have Mr. President Barack Obama with us. And let me tell you this, Mr. President; I’m sure you know, but it’s important to let you know once again, we make a big contribution to our country from all across art, music, labor. And most important a lot of Hispanics are in Iraq defending the United States, even without being American citizen.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q We need your help.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I’ve said every time I’ve been on the show, Piolín, we’re going to make sure that we begin the process of dealing with the immigration system that’s broken. We’re going to start by really trying to work on how to improve the current system so that people who want to be naturalized, who want to become citizens, like you did, that they are able to do it; that it’s cheaper, that it’s faster, that they have an easier time in terms of sponsoring family members.
And then we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform. Now, you know, we need to get started working on it now. It’s going to take some time to move that forward, but I’m very committed to making it happen. And we’re going to be convening leadership on this issue so that we can start getting that legislation drawn up over the next several months.
Q Mr. President, is there some sort of network we could establish to be in communication regarding the comprehensive immigration reform, and personally what can I do?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, the key thing right now is obviously we’ve got to make sure that all the people who are involved in immigration reform issues, that they sit down together and they start thinking about how we’re going to approach this problem. Politically it’s going to be tough. It’s probably tougher now than it was, partly because of the fact that the economy has gotten worse. So what I’ve got to do is I’ve got to focus on the economy, I’ve got to focus on housing, and make sure that people feel a little bit more secure; at the same time, get the various immigrant rights groups together and have them start providing some advice in terms of what strategies we’re going to pursue in Congress.
Q That’s one of the things, Mr. President, I would like to happen. I’m working for media and knowing that our people worked so much. And, you know, they came out from the houses, going to work — scary because they don’t even know if they’re going to be deported. And can we try to establish like a signal, like a network — for example, I like what you did with the financial — financial people, that you set it up, for example — the newspaper from LA, is part of that — those groups of advisors, financial advisors that you put — I like the idea. How can we have kind of like the thing where I can receive information? What do we need to do so we can receive a comprehensive reform?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ve got some wonderful people on my White House staff who are working on this issue on an ongoing basis. And what we’ll do is we’ll make sure that one of those people can appear on your program on a regular basis, giving you information about what we’re doing. And hopefully at some point you’ll be able to come visit us at the White House.
Q Any time, Mr. President. And I would like to be there when you sign the comprehensive immigration reform.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Well, thank you so much, Piolín. It’s great to talk to you.
Q Mr. President, you know we are close friends and you know that I have your BlackBerry phone number and you have mine. (Laughter.) So keep in touch.
THE PRESIDENT: You know I will. Thank you so much. Tell everybody in the studio I said hello. I had a great time when I visited you, and everybody there was so nice. And you were very nice to my wife, as well, when she was on the program. So thank you so much, Piolín. Take care.
Q Take care, Mr. President. You know, you are in our prayers. You have our support, and we want to help in any way we can.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Thank you, guys. Bye-bye.
END 1:57 P.M. MST
***
Anyone care for 10 million plus new pro-Socialist voters?
Manana.
posted by Concerned American | 1:58 PM
17 Comments:
unintended consequences:
some are going to get here, get online with that... unemployment insurance? what? ...and start listening to ron paul on youtube.
that'd sure be something.
PIOLÍN: ... And most important a lot of Hispanics are in Iraq defending the United States, even without being American citizen.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Right.
hahaha.
Why do you presume that all of them would be pro socialist?
Hispanics are overwhelmingly catholic, with strong family values and very traditional views which means they oppose gay marriage, oppose abortion, etc.
Frankly, they fit better with Republicans, except that Republicans have really, really screwed the pooch in their relations with hispanics over the past two decades and have driven many hispanics to the Dems because Republicans come across as being anti-hispanic, not just anti-illegal immigrant.
And your blanket presumption that there will be ipso facto 10 million more socialist voters just demonstrates why/how Republicans are screwing up.
I have many, many relatives in my family on my mother's side who are hispanic (and I am 1/4 hispanic), with some being immigrants from Mexico and others born here, and they are ALL life long conservatives precisely because they were raised catholic, and therefore apposed abortion, opposed gay marriage, and also because they are staunch gun owners and believe in hard work, not handouts.
And most of them are now born again Christians and far, far more conservative than most whites I know.
I have bible thumping aunts and uncles who are such staunch life-long conservatives that they thought Bush was wonderful and I had to really work to open their eyes to the dangerous expansions of power during the Bush Admin.
They are about as anti-socialist as you can possible get, and hate Democrats.
And they are hardly some anomaly.
And yet, you let the ravings of the communist La Raza and other idiots speak for all hispanics, and you buy La Raza's propoganda and presume they are all your political enemies (Ever heard of "You Don't Speak for Me"?).
Good going! That's exactly what La Raza wants you to do, so you will drive hispanics away from where they belong - in the Republican party - and toward the friggin communists in the Democratic party.
Don't paint with such a broad brush. You wouldn't presume that all blacks are like Bobby Rush, would you? Why not?
If not, then don't do that to all hispanics, because that shoe most certainly does not fit - unless you act like a racist and convince them by your actions that you hate all hispanics.
There is a war on for the hearts and minds of hispanics in this nation, and IF you lose it, it will be because you shot yourself in the foot by lumping all hispanics together and presuming they are your enemy.
Not smart.
Anyone care for 10 million plus new pro-Socialist voters?
The faster Socialism is expanded, the sooner it collapses because the numbers don't work.
Most people are pro-Socialist voters. That is the landscape you live in, and don't expect it to change regardless of how far lifestyles fall. As evidence for this claim, watch this this personally made video on Zimbabwe. It features lots of able-bodied, adequately-fed adults standing around whining that somebody else isn't solving their problems for them:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/11/zimbabwe-secret-film
"Anyone care for 10 million plus new pro-Socialist voters?"
That's 10 million unmistakenly easy targets to me,Bro!
CIII
Once the power base is solidified, there is no return to America as we knew it.
Stewart:
First, just to be clear, here are my views on the differences between humans:
We are all God’s children and as such, we are all terrifically flawed.
IMHO, that takes care of all distinctions based on superficialities such as race, national origin, gender, and skin tone.
Starting from that premise, I base my assessments of other people on their actions and their beliefs.
The simple fact is that any person who is in this country illegally has already shown me, by their violation of our country’s immigration laws, that they are willing to place their interests above this country’s laws.
That fact itself in not a bad thing per se, and I fully comprehend the economic desperation that drives many/most immigrants to come here illegally.
But let’s look at what happens after that alien crosses our border illegally.
That alien then will, in all probability, work for cash and thus violate our country’s income tax laws.
Again, not bad per se, but it is another round of law-breaking.
If our alien friend works for a company that must feign compliance with immigration laws, it is highly likely that he/she will fraudulently use either a wholly-false SSN or an SSN which belongs to an American citizen.
More law-breaking.
If he/she gets sick, there is a high probability that public funds (i.e., US taxpayers’ money) will be used for the alien’s treatment.
If he/she reproduces, more taxpayer money will be consumed.
If he/she drives, it is highly probable that the operator will be unlicensed and no insurance will be carried on the vehicle.
And it goes on and on…..
California’s functional insolvency is directly attributable to unlimited illegal immigration, as are the crime and fiscal problems faced by states across the American Southwest border.
Yet, if I understand your point, many of these illegal immigrants will, if they are granted US citizenship, renounce their dependency on the public weal and instead join the few remaining Constitutionalists in our efforts to restore limited government at the local, state, and Federal levels.
I simply don’t see how that is going to happen.
The Republican Party, being simply another flavor of Socialist, does want their votes, and is willing to pay, just as are the Democrats, for those votes with public money.
But for those of us who are SNBI Second Amendment advocates, who believe in flat taxes and severely constrained government at all levels, to expect that amnesty will do anything other than dilute our already-paltry political power is to hope for things in the face of contrary evidence.
Net-net, I stand with you, your family, and any other anti-collectivist regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, skin tone, or other silly distraction against the mob of transnational socialists and their minions.
Concerned American writes: But for those of us who are SNBI Second Amendment advocates, who believe in flat taxes and severely constrained government at all levels
I infer from the positions in your comment that you also appear to believe in: protectionism for labor (green cards), and the socialist slave number employment quota/tracking system and "driver's license" national identity and internal passport cards that makes them practical; income taxes, and the bans on financial privacy that make them practical; legislated high barriers to entry and licensing monopolies on car and health insurance that ban cheaper alternatives; legislated high barriers to entry and licensing monopolies on healthcare that bans the lodge doctor system, which historically provided cheap healthcare before the AMA got it banned; and so on.
These illegal immigrants are successfully achieving a measure of liberty in their own lives against a much higher level of Jim Crow laws than you face. They are much closer to living under a reality of flat taxes and severely constrained government at all levels than you are. They are sitting at any lunch counter that will accept their money. Isn't liberty and justice for all supposed to be the overarching goal?
I understand the American habit of obeying laws, because at first glance "they're probably reasonable" and "if everybody ignored them there would be chaos". However, being a good German is how we got into this mess. Your positions are compatible with the efforts of the mob of transnational socialists and their minions -- but I don't think you realize that.
Anon:
If your freedom-seeking Mexican comes here, works for cash wages, and does not get on the government tit, more power to him.
Got any data for how many of these fine men and women are amongst the ones who DO get on the government tit?
Similarly, do you have any data for the number of illegals who, once granted amnesty, will be voting the flat tax, extremely limited government platform?
"Why do you presume that all of [the illegal immigrants] would be pro socialist?"
Look at the voting record of Mexico. It is the most thoroughly socialized economy in North America.
Mexico is the world's most heavily unionized country. It is accordingly one of the poorest.
Drug trafficking and political corruption are endemic.
10 million Mexicans are living illegally in the US of A because they have ruined their economy and have no choice but to look for economic support outside their own borders.
Gun control is a fixture of political life in Mexico.
There is near-constant warfare between illegal immigrants and our own native black population.
Amnesty will shift Mexico's problems onto the US of A at a time when our own economy is near the breaking point.
If you want to push the US of A onto the scrap heap of former world powers, vote for amnesty; if you love your country and want to regain its lost liberties, close the borders.
Concerned American wrote: Got any data for how many of these fine men and women are amongst the ones who DO get on the government tit?
I don't see American culture or citizens as being all that different from anybody else: how many Americans voted for someone other than a Republican or Democrat for president? On our side of the fence there is a high percentage whining for entitlements and nanny-statism. Remove the fence entirely and I don't think the percentages change much. Many people view the State as their protector-figure. They cling to this belief despite all evidence, because it's a religion that gives them peace of mind.
If liberty is going to succeed, then the small minority who want it must find methods to reject the enforcement of collectivism, despite remaining a small and embedded minority.
Similarly, do you have any data for the number of illegals who, once granted amnesty, will be voting the flat tax, extremely limited government platform?
Party R says Jews (oops, Mexicans) are vermin to be squashed, party D says Jews are welcome to settle. If you were a Jew, which would you publicly support? On the other hand, that doesn't mean they're going to follow all of its nanny-state rules, either.
Anon:
"Vermin to be squashed"?
WTF, over?
I've been to the American concentration camps at Manzanar and Heart Mountain, as well as the German camps at Dachau, Matthausen, Auschwitz, and Birkenau.
I'm not a Rooseveltian American Socialist, nor am I Hitlerian German National Socialist. I ain't looking to squash or imprison anyone.
I am suggesting, however, that American national interests are served by a suspension of all immigration from Mexico until:
a) A robust physical barrier is constructed and staffed for the entire US/Mexico border;
b) The backlog of pending legal immigration applications from Mexico is properly processed;
c) Existing American social welfare/transfer payment mechanisms are dismantled as unconstitutional; and
d) the Fourteenth Amemdnment is amended to grant American birthright citizenship only to children of parents legally within the US at the time of the child's birth.
The central point of the commentary remains -- bringing more socialist voters into the voting population dilutes the power of each non-collectivist vote in that population.
Until someone shows me hard data on the political philosophy and voting records of the estimated 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants as of 3/08 per this Pew Institute report, I am going to stick to my guns that amnesty will be damaging to American freedoms.
All of that is moot, given the political power of the AmSocs in the Congress and White House.
Once again, if you're pro-freedom and anti-collectivist, I'm with you. Nothing else matters.
Forward.
Concerned American quotes Anon: "Vermin to be squashed"?
WTF, over?
Sorry, I skipped too many steps in my argument; this is how I got there: When a ruling elite wants to convince a ruled population to unify and support them, they invent a common enemy. The common enemy is used in propaganda as a scapegoat, and all problems are blamed on the scapegoat. The common enemy can be a "foreign devil" (Mexicans illegally in the current US), or a native hated minority (Jews in Nazi Germany). The story in the propaganda goes: "[designated scapegoat] is 'stealing' (actually, outcompeting for) our jobs/real estate/women/genetic purity, and must be forcibly stopped." At different times in the US the scapegoat has been: Native Americans, Germans, Italians, Irish, African Americans, Germans again, Jews, Japanese, African Americans again, Chinese, GUN OWNERS, Mexicans. Whether the ruling elite is the local KKK or Hitler, the scapegoating-of-the-different psychology is the same.
Now, given all those examples, does it still seem likely that employees born in Mexico are a "problem"? (Austrian economics actually proves that free trade in labor makes everybody better off, but the proof won't fit in this comment.)
The central point of the commentary remains -- bringing more socialist voters into the voting population dilutes the power of each non-collectivist vote in that population.
This argument seems to assume that a long-term improvement in freedom can be made through variations on electoral voting, but 230+ years of history proves this wrong.
a) A robust physical barrier is constructed and staffed for the entire US/Mexico border;
This argument seems to assume that the rules for crossing borders in either direction will favor liberty in the long term, but 230+ years of history proves this wrong. Examples: During the civil war, the Union starved the economy of the Confederacy by controlling the border militarily, and blockading the South's exports of cotton in international trade. Today the "national" border checkpoint is used as an excuse to prevent importing some inexpensive rifles, and there is talk of banning many more rifles and inexpensive ammunition; does this seem pro-liberty? Today, crossing the "national" border requires retinal scans. Does that level of tracking seem pro-liberty? If a through-your-clothes picture and an internal passport was needed to efficiently travel across the border from one US state to another, would that increased level of tracking seem pro-liberty? How about the State just puts a chip in your hand, tells you where you can and cannot go with travel papers, and turns the border into an iron curtain? Checkpoints and borders are a divide and conquer strategy, and you are sadly supporting this policy against your self-interest. The pro-liberty position is no checkpoints or borders, and people, money and goods flow freely. This is why the constitution specifies that there shall be no tariffs between US states, not that the principle is respected today.
suspension of all immigration from Mexico until: [...] c) Existing American social welfare/transfer payment mechanisms are dismantled as unconstitutional;
Socialism and central planning is not going to stop until it explodes in a complete failure to feed and clothe people. In the meantime, it is not a reason to infringe anyone's travel liberties. It's not tactical, strategic, moral, or pro-liberty.
Anon:
I fear that we are talking past each other, with neither of us likely to change positions.
My position is simple: fortify the southern border with Mexico, suspend legal immigration from Mexico until the applications backlog is processed, and preclude all illegal immigrants from access to any public welfare payments/medical benefits as a step towards the elimination of all such unconstitutional programs.
What is your position?
Note that I support unlimited travel privileges; what I oppose is foreign travelers converting their temporary visits into illegal residency, followed by accessing public benefits funded by the American taxpayers.
Note also that I have little worry about an illegal coming here, working for cash, paying for all goods and services received, and thereby contributing to our society.
It's not the illegal immigration issue so much as the illegal immigration followed by claims for public benefits.
What does concern me is the factual experience of those border states that have experienced de facto unlimited illegal immigration over the past twenty years, as well as the likely electoral effect of granting US citizenship to those same illegals.
Sincerely,
A Believer in Well-Regulated Borders
I fear that we are talking past each other, with neither of us likely to change positions.
Dear Concerned American, I'm not so sure about that. We're having a discussion, not a shouting match. We're listening to each other's points and responding to their substance. As our positions slide by each other, a projection might snag and open up a window on our own views that we hadn't considered.
My position is simple: fortify the southern border with Mexico, suspend legal immigration from Mexico until the applications backlog is processed, and preclude all illegal immigrants from access to any public welfare payments/medical benefits as a step towards the elimination of all such unconstitutional programs.
I feel any Southern border strengthening just strengthens the iron curtain which is used against Americans. Today we have gun import bans across that border. Tomorrow, who knows what Soviet horror will be imposed. Cavity searches? Capital exchange controls to make the dollar worthless outside like the Ruble was? Kerry proposed that ten years ago. Carbon taxes on oil, to starve us to make the watermelons happy, and to make the lords of a world hydraulic empire based on Carbon even happier?
I feel that coming up with "reasonable" immigration standards requires anticipating the entire market; it's impossible in engineering terms for the same reason central planning is. On top of being impossible, it's also wrong to restrict free travel.
I feel that preventing people who haven't put taxes in from taking taxes out is politically equivalent to eliminating all redistribution everywhere, and doing it by means of electoral vote. It's impossible. The tax-funded service racket is about to go broke of its own accord. I wouldn't want the unintended consequence of a stronger national id as a side effect of trying to shut down fraud in welfare, imports, travel, or immigration.
What is your position?
This is what I want for a long-term goal: No national boundaries. No nations. The very idea that some "other" dare impose rules by force onto a peaceful, property-rights-respecting person being regarded as more evil than colonialism and slightly less evil than chattel slavery.
In the short term, these are events I would be happy to see:
More drug submarines getting through to the Southern coast. One, it is legally valid (which is not the same as morally proper) free trade; two, it serves as ongoing proof that the borders are far from airtight, and the great Wizard of Oz can't deliver all it promises/threatens.
More illegal aliens being given American driver's licenses. The freedom to travel in the US is less restricted, and it weakens the strength of the driver's license as a form of identification card.
More illegal aliens sneaking into the US and taking up residence. If they are net taxpayers, then by definition they're standing on their own two feet to the extent the law allows them. If they use the tax-funded services sparingly and only during dire need, in the spirit that Midwestern middle voters wish them to, then they are good neighbors. If they are grotesque octo-mom net tax consumers, then collectivism is seen to be contrary to human nature that much faster.
It's not the illegal immigration issue so much as the illegal immigration followed by claims for public benefits.
What does concern me is the factual experience of those border states that have experienced de facto unlimited illegal immigration over the past twenty years, as well as the likely electoral effect of granting US citizenship to those same illegals.
I think we agree on what the near-term effects will look like. I don't think we agree on whether the side effects of the proposed medicines are worse than the original disease. I hope I've pointed out some side effects you might not have considered. Given all that, do you still want a secure border, knowing who is going to control it and what kind of policies they're going to try to implement with it? "Da, Comrade, we will let you visit the East...while we hold your family to prevent you from defecting."
Anon:
"Worse is better", eh?
Here's why I have always come back to the nation-state as a necessity, to be bounded carefully and rigorously as possible.
I believe, deeply and with substantial evidence, in the base nature of the human heart. Not that I deny that same heart's capacity for unbelievable Good, but just that we are very flawed creatures.
I believe that many people will revert to barbarism as soon as they see a sufficient percentage in abandoning evolved-over-the-centuries social mores.
Government, defined as a consensual delegation of responsibility for certain limited essential services (e.g., national defense) from individuals to other individuals who agree to limit their scope of action to the four corners of the delegated authority, is a way that I can be safe from my fellow humans' predatory desires and thus be able to focus on my chosen sphere of productivity (economic, aesthetic, self-indulgent within the rule of consent).
I also believe that, with the pending financial collapse of most national governments, Western mankind is going to face the same level of existential threat from his fellow humans as did the poor devils in Central Europe during the Thirty Years War.
The overtly-Evil human beings in such a scenario will use their embrace of darkness as a tactical advantage and slaughter millions of their more placid brethren and sistren.
Ye, we do face what I consider "First World threats" via the national surveillance state, the militarized and Federalized local constabulary, and the transnational socialists who seek to enslave all humans outside of their elite ranks.
We also face a "Third World threat" on our Southern border, where the failed Mexican state will soon collapse and produce millions of destitute, desperate refugees.
Absent a secure border administered by a constitutionally-bounded American nation-state, the American landholders in the border states will be overrun and driven from their property by the impoverished Mexican refugees and the perpetually-angry political activists who exploit them.
That's what I would like.
I ain't gonna get that. What I have now and am going to get for the near-term is an incompetent, voracious Leviathan that cannot fulfill the fundamental purpose of a nation-state (i.e., national defense) but who wants to control every aspect of my life and charge me upwards of 75% of my gross income to attempt to do so.
Eventually, Leviathan will fail a la the Soviet Union and every other tyranny in history, and what will remain are (hopefully) a few scattered "points of light"/resilient communities where the products of 6 millenia of human progress will have been preserved.
If they still exist, those points of light will need to figure how to keep from being food for the hordes of predators that will still stalk the planet.
And it will be 1648 all over again, with NationState 3.0 to be chosen as the least-terrible way to administer the relations between people of different backgrounds, cultures, and traditions.
With respect, where I have always disagreed with traditional Libertarians is with their overly-optimistic (IMHO) view of mankind.
Yes, I believe in free trade (but reserve the right to keep certain strategic industries within my own borders).
Yes, I believe in open borders (for travel, not residence).
Yes, I believe in sound money, extremely limited government, very low taxes, and a transparent rule of law.
Yes, I believe in placing large areas of public and private life beyond the reach of any government action, upon pain of death to the government actor who would transgress those limitations.
No, I do not believe in unregulated immigration to a First World country from a Third World country, unless that First World country has, in fact and in law, dispensed will all public assistance programs.
"That's what I would like" in the prior post refers to a secured Southern border administered by a constitutionally-bounded Federal government.
Government, defined as a consensual delegation of responsibility for certain limited essential services (e.g., national defense) from individuals to other individuals who agree to limit their scope of action to the four corners of the delegated authority, is a way that I can be safe from my fellow humans' predatory desires and thus be able to focus on my chosen sphere of productivity (economic, aesthetic, self-indulgent within the rule of consent).
I think this is a reasonable summary of the minarchist position. I used to be a minarchist for many years. Eventually, the weight of the evidence against it disproved it to me. There were too many genocides in other countries, who also appeared to have nice written constitutions and legislative bodies. Too many wacko nutcase dictators were elected by overwhelming popular vote. Having started to hold minarchism itself up for examination, I found fundamental concepts such as "consensual delegation" were not even close to true, and never were. Spooner's critique remains unanswered. When habeas corpus was lost here with the military commissions act, I thought [ding!] the minarchism argument has been conclusively disproven. No minarchism can ever get in this situation and still be called a minarchism. Not even once, not even for a moment, and certainly not with two branches declaring it plainly in writing and the last quietly agreeing.
Eventually, I concluded that competition was the only force that kept organizations sane. The opposite of competition is government-granted monopoly; and the special exception minarchism makes for monopoly courts, legislatures, and police is a flaw in the design sufficient to drive a tyranny through. I think neither you nor I can change the broad course of upcoming unhappy events all that much. What I do think we can change is to not repeat the mistake of recreating minarchism.
I believe that many people will revert to barbarism as soon as they see a sufficient percentage in abandoning evolved-over-the-centuries social mores.
Suppose we receive a watered-down version of Mad Max. I say watered-down because the US is full of farmland and human settlement, not desert, so the competition for resources is not as great as for watering holes in the Australian outback. But we have a Mini Mad Max. Can you picture it getting bad enough that a chaos or an anarchy violently kills more people than even one of the genocides did in China, Russia, or Germany?
With respect, where I have always disagreed with traditional Libertarians is with their overly-optimistic (IMHO) view of mankind.
We have some historical evidence to bear on this question. Geographically-intermingled anarchy quite worked nicely in Iceland for 250 years, and by some measures its record is far better than ours.
Yes, I believe in [...]
I don't think you can point to that list as ever having been substantially implemented anywhere, anywhen. If we count native Americans, blacks, and women as people, we have had that list at no time in the entire US' history. I don't think tweaks like a greater penalty for infringing the bill of rights will change the outcome any. The founders already wrote "shall not be infringed" in the documents about military defense weapons, and that failed. I'm not seeing a minachist method proposed which I think will achieve those goals.
"Worse is better", eh?
If you mean that in the software systems design cultural sense, then yes.
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home