Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
ARI Media Feed

Open the Borders, End the Housing Glut

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Can any individual buy and sell property in the United States?
Except where prohibited by law. But we know that those laws are improper; the only moral stance is to oppose such laws, and the creation of any new restrictions on property rights.
Society does not have any rights to your property? Sure, but your work is your property. The money you pay in tax, that's what is taken away from you.
That would be one example of a law prohibiting the free exchange of property that should be opposed. Another example of an improper law is the law that prohibits me from freely transferring my property (money) to Mexicans in exchange for their property (labor)
I think the glut is partially caused by housing prices being inflated.
What does that mean? How do you "inflate" the price of a house? It's not as though there is some "natural" price of a house that is distinct from what the market will bear. If I can persuade someone to buy my house for $200,000 then that tells you what it is worth to the buyer; if the most I can get is $150,000, then that is the house's value.
Next, bad loans. Bad banks and bad borrowers should suffer.
They would, if the government weren't in the habit of aiding and requiring risky loans to be made.

I don't know if there would actually be a substantial upturn in the housing market if people had the freedom to move about. There are very many potential customers who have the resources and are turned away at the door, or left in limbo because their right to purchase and use a house is constantly subject to capricious denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I should have said "racial-group membership".

I disagree with this. Lumping all lawyers together as jerks, for example, is just as bad in my opinion. Tribalism occurs anytime you lump all members of any group together as one collective, and it's just a lazy way to get out of individual judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you "inflate" the price of a house? It's not as though there is some "natural" price of a house that is distinct from what the market will bear. If I can persuade someone to buy my house for $200,000 then that tells you what it is worth to the buyer; if the most I can get is $150,000, then that is the house's value.They would, if the government weren't in the habit of aiding and requiring risky loans to be made.

What is value? Value fluctuates. Plenty of stories of individuals getting offers above asking price over a period of time in recent years. Individuals wanted to be in specific locations, and they were willing to pay extra for that, and there were those willing to finance that to those. When demand started to drop, housing prices dropped too. Some of the problems have been people that financed nearly all the house, and then, as the market price dropped below what they paid, well, it's like a car rather than the investment they thought that was going to continue upward.

Classic example of buying high and selling low. And some got caught.

If one "bought", meaning they financed, a house for $420,000 and the market dropped. And they were in an interest only loan. Hey, they might be inclined to walk away from the house. It has happened. That's part of the problem. They aren't loosing any equity in the house since they didn't have any. Basically, they were paying rent, and then they were gambling that the market value of the property would go up.

Sure, that's a game that could be played out for everyone, but there are risky ways to do it and those with less risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If one "bought", meaning they financed, a house for $420,000 and the market dropped. And they were in an interest only loan. Hey, they might be inclined to walk away from the house. It has happened. That's part of the problem. They aren't loosing any equity in the house since they didn't have any.
Which then has nothing to do with the notion of "inflating" the value of a house, and everything to do with the bad practice of making high-risk loans. Also nothing to do with immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DavidOdden -- No one is allowed to "immigrate" into private homes, businesses, country clubs, or gated communities. The owners control the "immigration" completely and by right. Any alien or foreigner who tries to "freely immigrate" is trespassing, and has no right to be there.

It's the same principle with a free state. If a hundred individuals set up a tiny city-state with a hundred personal lots, and a small amount of "public" roads, these hundred may indeed forbid all immigration -- all use of their roads by non-citizen foreigners. If not a single one of the citizens wants Person X to visit, then Person X is properly forbidden to enter. He has no freedom to enter that domain -- no right of immigration which the hundred are properly required to consider.

Indeed, the hundred could even draft a charter or constitution in which in order to become citizen, and not a criminal, visitors are never allowed. If all the private property owners and free individuals agree to this condition in setting up their government and city-state then that's the way it is. No freedom of immigration is permitted whatsoever. Such "freedom" would be a violation of property rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, the hundred could even draft a charter or constitution in which in order to become citizen, and not a criminal, visitors are never allowed. If all the private property owners and free individuals agree to this condition in setting up their government and city-state then that's the way it is.

Your scenario is even more outrageous than your proposition. A nation is not the same thing as a gated community. Your scenario assumes that no one will wants the immigrant in the community, and therefore he will not enter. Fair enough. But what if one home owner in the community wants to sell his home to an immigrant. After all, that's what we're talking about here. Indeed, your scenario included that the a priori precondition "If not a single one of the citizens wants Person X to visit" that doesn't actually exist in reality. The reality is that many homeowners in the United States wouldn't mind selling their homes to an immigrant, and many business owners would like to hire illegal immigrants but are being prohibited from doing so.

Now, please elucidate how you prpose to prohibit the homeowner from selling his property to the immigrant, without violating somebody's rights.

Edited by adrock3215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DavidOdden -- No one is allowed to "immigrate" into private homes, businesses, country clubs, or gated communities. The owners control the "immigration" completely and by right. Any alien or foreigner who tries to "freely immigrate" is trespassing, and has no right to be there.

It's the same principle with a free state.

False. It is not the same principle with a free-state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The owners control the "immigration" completely and by right.
The government does not own the United states, therefore it has no right to restrict immigration. Only the owner of property has protection against trespassing. Only the owner of specific property may prohibit a citizen or alien from entering their specific property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the "racists" above are taking into consideration is a certain level of social metaphysics which seems to escape you. That the socialism of our government is going to attract a certain kind of person. This isn't the old days of the land of opportunity where people would sink or swim by their own merits. We are not attracting people escaping difficult political circumstances. We are attracting economic opportunists of the worst kind who will fundementally alter the culturural backdrop of this country for the worse.

Could you please back up this assertion that it is mostly the moochers that are interested in emigrating and the producers are most likely to stay and endure their current, usually much worse, circumstances?

Your country is still the most free in the world. Why it would be mostly the moochers and not freedom lovers?

Difficult political circumstances and economic conditions are related. Purely politically driven emigration was always relatively low.

We are not getting the best of what Mexico has to offer.

Perhaps. However, given more open immigration policy, you would see a much more diverse pool because many people are not interested in living in your (or any other) country illigally. There are limits and all kinds of restrictions to working visas so a lot of people who would otherwise would like to offer their skills to the American market are prohibited from doing so.

Look at it this way. If I were to open a bar and advertise that my drinks cost double what all the other bars cost unless you are homeless, then they're free, what sort of clientele might I expect? The people that can afford my overpriced drinks are not going to want to be there and the Wino's are going to come in droves. No other outcome can reasonable be expected.

Well that pretty much summarizes Canada and yet you do not see Canada attracting masses of people the way America does eventhough it is much easier to settle here and social programs are much greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which then has nothing to do with the notion of "inflating" the value of a house, and everything to do with the bad practice of making high-risk loans. Also nothing to do with immigration.

It does have to do with inflating as if the value didn't drop below that point, well, then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Agreed, nothing to do with immigration.

Well that pretty much summarizes Canada and yet you do not see Canada attracting masses of people the way America does eventhough it is much easier to settle here and social programs are much greater.

Well, can we add in proximity, weather, and further economic potential in there?

If the programs are "greater", that's a cost that is taken from the producers. Healthcare? Well, it runs a course, then it's done. You're on your own. What reward is there to look for in a social/economic program that further taxes production that one that doesn't?

In the US, litigation is a new gun, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, can we add in proximity, weather, and further economic potential in there?

If the programs are "greater", that's a cost that is taken from the producers. Healthcare? Well, it runs a course, then it's done. You're on your own. What reward is there to look for in a social/economic program that further taxes production that one that doesn't?

The weather in many parts of Canada is very mild. Proximity is not an issue as people emigrate from all over the world. Here in Vancouver we have a lot of people from China, for example (and I have to tell you that their work ethic, from my personal experience, as I work with many of them, is consistently way above average).

Are there moochers among the immigrants? - yes. Are immigrants predominantly moochers? - no. Not any more than what you see normally in a population. More open immigration policy would eliminate much of the immigration related crime in America (not unlike it would be for drug related crime if drugs were made legal). We do not have immigrant driven identity theft problem here, for example.

I do not see the evidence that immigrants, when they are allowed to come legally, tend to have a certain kind of ideology rather than the usual mix bag. If anything, I observed them to be of greater ambition than average - they are making a drastic change, often having to learn another language, in order to better their life. If they did not want to make effort they would have stayed were they were.

I see many of them valuing freedom more because they know first hand what it means to live with less freedom. For many of them many things are anew: new and often very different culture (not just customs but values), new types of food... and new ideas are a part of that as well. So they are not any less likely (and are perhaps more likely) to be open to ideological shift. The immigrants that I work with are more interested and open to my views than my Canadian co-workers are. Many of them know what did not work and are looking for solutions.

Edited by ~Sophia~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not getting the best of what Mexico has to offer.

How do you know? There are many Mexican businessmen in this country legally and doing productive work. For example, I knew a rocket scientist, literally, in Houston that moved here from Mexico with his family. They were very wealthy, highly educated and were able to get in rather easily and legally. His little brother now runs a very successful tour company. How are they not the best Mexico had to offer? My boyfriend's father came here illegally, educated himself, became and engineer and obtained his citizenship. Is he not worthy of being called Mexico's best? Who even knows what the best Mexico has to offer with their government constantly trying to squash it. And ours is no better!

No one above is racist.

I don't think they are racists; however, I think some of their comments are and I don't think they even realize it which is why I urged them to read or reread Rand's essay to further educate themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does have to do with inflating as if the value didn't drop below that point, well, then there wouldn't have been a problem.
I don't see how that constitutes "inflation", which implies something unnatural and governmentally manipulated about it (as when the money supply is manipulated by legal counterfeiting).
In the US, litigation is a new gun, though.
Yeah, that's an annoying new means of initiating force under color of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in a completely free state there's a strong argument to be made for keeping "the barbarians at the gate" outside, lest they use the access provided by public roads to commit crime. They may also degrade the quality of life on those same public roads.

But America isn't close to being a free state, and preventing the public areas from being overrun by crooks and beggars is reasonable -- especially if these new immigrants gain access to citizenship where they can vote in socialism and tyranny. Having open borders now, with all other conditions remaining the same, as Biswanger and Brook suggest, seems horrific. Would America be a happier, freer, richer, better place, with a superior lifestyle, if 300 million or more Latin Americans, Africans, and Muslims suddenly moved here, to our welfare state, in the next year? What if they acquired instant citizenship too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rather funny coincidence: I got to chapter 5 of Facets of Ayn Rand today, "Ayn Rand on negatives", and found this segment- fortunately the ARI put it up online so I don't need to type it all down. It's an interesting snippet that I guess could be mentioned in passing seeing the topic of the thread:

-------------

ARI

Were there any kinds of ques­tions she especial­ly disliked?

MARY ANN

She didn’t like ques­tions that began with: “Miss Rand, I un­der­stand what you said about so-and-so, but don’t you think. . .?”—followed by the ques­tioner present­ing a dif­fer­ent point of view. That form of the ques­tion implied that Ayn was say­ing one thing while think­ing some­thing else, that she was be­ing hypocritical. Often her response was, “No, if I had thought so, I would have said so.” It was said in a very matter-of-fact tone of voice. But sometimes she answered with anger. One night, I heard her explain to an audience just why that form of the ques­tion was offensive and improper, what it implied, and why she was indignant. Everyone benefited from hear­ing her analysis.

ARI

Can you give a specific example of when she responded angri­ly to a ques­tion?

MARY ANN

Some­one asked her for her views on immigra­tion, if she thought it was a good thing. And she got indignant immediate­ly at the very idea that anyone might be opposed to immigra­tion, that a country might not let immigrants in. One of the things she said in her answer was, “Where would I be today if America closed its doors to immigrants?” That real­ly hit home; I’m sure every­one there realized that she would not have survived in Soviet Russia, that a person with her ideas would have died in prison, somewhere in Siberia. In her answer, she was defend­ing peo­ple who were seek­ing freedom and a better life. And I think she was assum­ing that immigrants would be like she was—ready and able to make their own way, accept­ing help if voluntari­ly given by individuals but not expect­ing government handouts. But it was clear that she was angry at the idea, not at the person ask­ing the ques­tion.

I heard peo­ple say­ing things like “I had no idea what I was real­ly advocat­ing.” Ayn was teach­ing the students the importance of analyz­ing their ideas, of un­der­stand­ing what was implicit in what they had been taught to believe and why it was wrong and often evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even in a completely free state there's a strong argument to be made for keeping "the barbarians at the gate" outside,

Could you please provide your strong argument, for all of us to see? Surely the many intelligent people here will recognize the argument's soundness if it is rational.

But America isn't close to being a free state, and preventing the public areas from being overrun by crooks and beggars is reasonable

If we put your argument in somewhat coherent form, then at some point we would find the following two premises:

P: Many immigrants are immigrating to America in 2008.

P: All immigrating immigrants are socialist pigs who want free stuff.

The connection between the two is a total non-sequitur. Not only is it barbaric for its collectivist undertone, but it is outright irrational.

Would America be a happier, freer, richer, better place, with a superior lifestyle, if 300 million or more Latin Americans, Africans, and Muslims suddenly moved here, to our welfare state, in the next year?

Ok, so the purpose of government is to promote a "happy, free, rich, better place, with a superior lifestyle" in your view. Fair enough. But have you actually read Rand's work? Don't come back claiming that you have, because what I mean is: have you actually read it? Rand's position is that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Let's be generous and say that you agree with that principle (quite frankly, I haven't seen any evidence that you do). Now, assuming you do, please demonstrate to me how you begin with the principle that government exists to protect individual rights and end with a government that violates individual rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I'm going to use the roads and walk my dog in the local park.

I misunderstood your meaning. Of course, I realize that it is impossible to completely avoid use. I took your meaning to be more along the lines of come in without a background check, steal someones identity, claim 9 dependents on your w-2's, collect welfare, get a house with no money down at a lower interest rate then your risk would qualify you for, don't bother buying health insurance, just go to a hospital for a headache, have several children and let Gordon pay for their education. If you meant, "come here and work and use te government services which you can't avoid," then I completely misread you.

Not necessarily. It depends on the person. I sure didn't, anyway.

It might be fair to consider you an outlier, being an objectivist an all. Generally people who benefit from free services encourage rather than oppose their growth. Fair?

This is simply not true. As evidence, I would introduce you to my wife, if I could. Her family moved here after they encountered a tremendous amount of difficulty in running their small business in Rio during the '90's. They came to escape political circumstances (increase in economic populism that is still going on in Latin America), as well as the plague of crime that rots Brazil's cities.

I think I was unclear. Obviously I am generalizing, but when dealing with social metaphysics, it is impossible to avoid. I don't mean that no people of quality immigrate here. Just that the majority of the ones I have come into contact with(in nearly 2 decades of construction work) have yet to impress me. For my evidence I can only point to the hundreds of instances of identity theft and system playing that I have witnessed. Not my sort of person.

Actually, we are. I would urge you to go to your local day-laborer site and talk to some of these guys. I have. I've employeed illegals many times, and have always been satisfied with the end result. Do you know how much money it is to come here from Mexico, or any other country? As a generality, only the top classes are able to come. I have a friend who crossed the border illegally, and it cost him 10 grand to get put in the back of a truck. That's not cheap (especially if you live in Mexico).

Again, my opinions do not come from too little experience in that world, but rather too many. You should mention to your friend that he was severely over charged.

It's not the same. Social security funds have already been unjustly stolen from people. We are talking about people who are coming here for the first time, and have not been a part of any social system. The social security example is akin to denying a right to something which I have already paid for, while the immigration example is a denial of something much more fundamental, my physical freedom.

I meant my example to be an explanation of the danger of changing things too quickly and in the wrong order. No one has a right to social security. They bought into a ponzi scheme and morally the damages rest with them. That said, to end it quickly would cause pretty horrible repercussions. Hate it as i do, I still would not be in favor of a radical plan to end SS tomorrow. My opinion of immigration is the same in this regard. It is well and good to suppose that borders out to be more or less open with proper background checks to insure no criminals or terrorists, but only in a more or less economically free country. As a country where the government controls 40% of the GDP and maintains massive entitlement programs that are moments away from bankrupting the country, we don't qualify. We barely afford the ever growing pool of Obama worshipping moochers who live here now let alone all of mexico's.

Just to clarify: I have never received or applied for direct transfer payments under any social programs.

...

So, to make it clear: I have not personally received any benefits. But one could say that I've used them to subsidize the pay of an employee of mine. So, that's how I've taken advantage of them. Now you guys can tell me how wrong I was and how stupid I am.

Good. :P They're not worth it. Glad that I misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you please back up this assertion that it is mostly the moochers that are interested in emigrating and the producers are most likely to stay and endure their current, usually much worse, circumstances?

Business owners are usually somewhat tied to their businesses. Contacts, equipment, buildings, employees, etc are difficult to move. Also, I don't often hear of factories being disassembled in Mexico and brought here. Further, if they are illegally here, getting a license to operate any business would be an impossibility. And it seems to be the consensus that the saintlike folks who come here illegally would never commit any other crime like identity theft. Which leads me to the only possible conclusion that these are not the self starters that I keep hearing about or they are committing fraud on an unbelievable scale.

Also, there are tons of numbers on the amount spent on illegal immigrants which I have provided in several previous discussions on the subject. And certainly, my personal experiences corroborate it.

Your country is still the most free in the world. Why it would be mostly the moochers and not freedom lovers?

I don't know why. Just seems to be the case.

Difficult political circumstances and economic conditions are related. Purely politically driven emigration was always relatively low.
Well sure, but the fact remains that people seeking political asylum, like the Cubans in Miami are an entirely different class of people.

Perhaps. However, given more open immigration policy, you would see a much more diverse pool because many people are not interested in living in your (or any other) country illigally. There are limits and all kinds of restrictions to working visas so a lot of people who would otherwise would like to offer their skills to the American market are prohibited from doing so.

I am not opposed to a more efficient bureaucratic method for dealing with immigration.

Well that pretty much summarizes Canada and yet you do not see Canada attracting masses of people the way America does eventhough it is much easier to settle here and social programs are much greater.

I don't know enough about immigration to Canada to comment. It could be we are just closer. Many of our Northern states have better welfare programs than Texas or Arizona, but lack the same degree of difficulties.

How do you know? There are many Mexican businessmen in this country legally and doing productive work.

Legally is a different story. I am not referring to people who obey laws and work.

My boyfriend's father came here illegally, educated himself, became and engineer and obtained his citizenship.

Do you think he is typical of the people who come here illegally?

I don't think they are racists; however, I think some of their comments are and I don't think they even realize it which is why I urged them to read or reread Rand's essay to further educate themselves.

I have read the essay a number of times and do not see it. Could you explain what in particular they said is racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have read the essay a number of times and do not see it. Could you explain what in particular they said is racist?

See post number 36...I already did. And yes, most people that I know that have come to the US illegally are very hard- working, law-abiding citizens who are productive and make efforts to become legal. Unfortunately, the process is an immoral crock of shit so they give up and just do what it takes to get by for as long as they can.

I'm simply not sure what point you all are trying to make. Anyone that wishes to come into this country should be able to (provided they're not violating other's rights.) Why some of you want to prevent certain people from coming because of their country of origin, educational level, job skills, etc., is nothing but pure tribalism and I can't even believe I'm having to argue this point. Take it to the debate forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your country is still the most free in the world. Why it would be mostly the moochers and not freedom lovers?

Because evil feeds on good. If a country is full of moochers, they can't all feed on the few productive members of society. They will have to come to a country that still produces, or die feeding on each other. Evil doesn't survive on its own (by definition, it is contrary to what life requires: production).

Nothing is more naive than to believe that if we open the borders to a country in which evil is stronger than in the United States, the little good that is there will come and the evil (which desperately needs it to survive) won't follow.

There are only two ways to prevent this:

1. prevent the looting once they're here-which, in today's American reality, is not going to happen

2. there needs to be a selection process, at least to give the good guys a head start: nothing is more unfair than what is going on right now, where the people who would do great in America are made to jump through hoops for years, while those who sneak in have access to precisely the loot they came here to receive.

As far as Canada goes, you guys don't have that much illegal immigration precisely because you do have a selection process. There isn't a border with a third world country which can be crossed, so the only people who are there against the government's wish are those who overstay their visas. (Students and people who are already qualified to receive a work visa. I'm sure they are above average: that's how they got there, they went through a selection process.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's some of that evidence you have to suggest that most of those who come legally, with work visas, don't speak the language?

From Dr. Brook's statement, it appears like he is referring to the total number of immigrants, not just the legal ones. I think you're probably right that legal immigrants mostly do have at least a basic knowledge of English--but this is not the point; the point is that if 5 million people actually immigrated every year (that's 50 million a decade!) then I think many of those would be ones who are unwilling to learn the language.

Are you saying that one of the automatic rights under laissez-faire capitalism, the political system Ayn Rand advocated for, namely the free movement of immigrants into the country, would not make economic sense?

No, I am saying that such utilitarian arguments are not a suitable way of defending individual rights. Saying "let's respect this right because respecting it is useful in this-and-this way" is counter-productive because as soon as circumstances change, the concrete utility you mentioned can easily vanish or turn into a disutility, and the argument will no longer be valid. If you want to argue that something is a right, you should explain why it is a right, not point to a consequence that you think is useful.

That such a freedom would in fact constitute a burden on Americans trying to buy houses?

Well, it would certainly increase the number of competing buyers they would have to bid against. Whether or not "burden" is the right word to describe such competition is another matter--but again, the point is that the concrete, short-term economic consequences of starting to respect a right are nice for some people and not so nice for others, which is why arguing for rights from concrete, short-term economic consequences is never a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because evil feeds on good. If a country is full of moochers, they can't all feed on the few productive members of society. They will have to come to a country that still produces, or die feeding on each other. Evil doesn't survive on its own (by definition, it is contrary to what life requires: production).

So let me get this straight: It's ok to restrict freedom when there is the possibility of its misuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let me get this straight: It's ok to restrict freedom when there is the possibility of its misuse?

No, it's never OK to restrict freedom. If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm in favor of opening the borders gradually, to give the system a chance to adapt.

Otherwise, with our current system, with tens of millions of poor people pouring into the country, and the minimum wage where it is, they will certainly(not just possibly) overwhelm the system and cause it to collapse.

We would have the same chaos an overnight introduction of laissez faire capitalism would cause.

As far as "misuse of freedom", I'm not sure what that means. I suspect nothing at all. I'm talking about the certainty of the continued and accelerated misuse of government force (looting).

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See post number 36...I already did. And yes, most people that I know that have come to the US illegally are very hard- working, law-abiding citizens who are productive and make efforts to become legal. Unfortunately, the process is an immoral crock of shit so they give up and just do what it takes to get by for as long as they can.

I'm simply not sure what point you all are trying to make. Anyone that wishes to come into this country should be able to (provided they're not violating other's rights.) Why some of you want to prevent certain people from coming because of their country of origin, educational level, job skills, etc., is nothing but pure tribalism and I can't even believe I'm having to argue this point. Take it to the debate forum!

I've read the whole thread including that post. I just failed to see how your examples were examples of racism. I reread this whole thread to try and understand this breakdown in understanding and I think I got it.

The people on my side of this argument are arguing against cultural relativity. While your side are arguing against racism.

I am fairly certain that no one here believes that an individual is incapable of any particular virtue or capable of any particular vice because of their genetic code. What we are arguing, rather, is that people's culture, defined by their politics and behaviors generally, is usually a good indicator of the majority of their characters. To say otherwise is to claim that A is non-A. So when we decide how many people(and they are necessarily limited), in general, and from where to let in to our increasingly socialist paradise, considering the national sense of life, the average crime rates, the generally held political views, and the average level of education are perfectly valid ways of identifying who to bring in.

Hispanics vote for Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin. So ,we can be reasonably certain that it is not because they are non-religious and are opposing the religious right. They are both more likely to be socialist and religious. How will that affect the political and cultural climate of the US going forward once they become the majority ethnic group in 2035?

To simplify our argument lets take it t the overused hypothetical island.

We have 10 objectivists on a democratic rights respecting island. A neighboring socialist island has 47 starving people and some of them want to sail on over. Maybe we need someone to help pick coconuts so we tell them that not only can they come, but if they do we will provide them with free education, money, healthcare and they won't have to pay taxes. So 2 come, no problem. Maybe they blend into the population and absorb our ideology. Then 3 more come and they are a voting block which must be catered to. Then 28 come. Our capitalist island is suddenly awash in people who like the socialist system because it's worked so well for them and they are not paying the bill. I suggest they will vote in the way which is most beneficial to them, in the short term, of course, and the 10 objectivists will pay for it and wonder what happened to their free happy, wealthy island.

It's not tribalism but it is generalizing which must be done at the political level we are discussing. If we were advocating getting out our guns, taking over and starting from scratch with a built in mechanism that protects property rights absolutely, then sure, let everyone in. But if we are working from within the system we have and must build consensus and not wreak havoc, then any actual transition to freedom must be considered on a broad level.

Consider the savings and loan scandals of the 80's. We partially deregulated banks. Sounds good right? Yay freedom. But we kept FDIC insurance. So the banks were able to make rediculous loans to politicians so that they could default and steal the money and the taxpayers could foot the $600billion dollar bill. Later deregulation becomes the obvious cause of the problem.

Do you see where we are coming from or should we go get white hoods and a cross?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...