Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by aequalsa

  1. Sorry about the quote function negelctionn issue. Still getting used to everything. Regarding generalizations, I am quite aware that they are dangerous. The problem is that when discussing things like masculinity and femininity that is pretty much all you have. Compare the male/female ratio in an upper level college math course. Or for economics majors, compare finance majors to human resources. The differences exist but they are certainly generalizations. You can be a woman and be good at math and be a man and be horrible at it. You can be a very masculine man or not. A feminine woman or not. The fact that you can be a feminine man or a masculine woman does not alter these characteristics. It just so happens that masculine traits are most often found in men and feminine traits are most often found in women. The question of why is more a question of science then philosophy. From the philosophic perspective, it is enough to know that something exists in order to assess it as either beneficial or detrimental to your life. Some people are born with no arms. That doesn't mean that it is incorrect to say that humans have two arms. It also doesn't mean that people who happen to not possess two arms are not human. It is a properly generalized metaphysical fact. Regarding the science part, I have read some interesting literature recently regarding the learning styles of boys vs girls and there is actually a great deal of neuroscience being done which does seem to suggest that the physical differences between men and women do not stop at the brain. If anyone is interested in the subject let me know and I will offer suggestions for reading.
  2. Excellent....you now owe me one new excellent word....I'll be waiting....at 10% interest, after 7 years you will owe me two words...muwahaha....
  3. 1. The Masculine http://www.cordair.com/carlyle/selfmademan.aspx 2. The Feminine http://www.cordair.com/mack/desiree.aspx 3. The Romantic (i.e. the nature of the emotional relationship between man and woman) http://www.cordair.com/mack/forever.aspx (Edited to fix link -sN)
  4. "(Side note: being young = being weaker? What?)" Younger is in most regards a weakness. Intellectually, financially, physically and otherwise. All strength requires time to develop. Very few people get weaker as they age. By young I mean being 19 as opposed to 40. Obviously at 97 years old you will be physically weaker. I would not call a gymnast 'delicate', nor would I call a good softball player 'delicate'. No, not necessarily. But her toughness is not what makes her sttractive to men. My point was only that the physical(not intellectual) attraction men feel is toward a woman's fragility. I also did not say it was a moral failure to be delicate- I said that a woman does not have to be 'delicate' to be feminine/female/valued as a woman. I didn't say that you did. I would agree that she doesn't have to be delicate to be valued as a person. But as a woman qua woman, I believe she does. Granted, women (in general) are physically weaker than men (in general) but there are plenty of exceptions to that 'rule', and I don't see those women as being somehow immoral or irrational just because they're stronger than most of the men they know. Do you have some sort of proof that a woman would be unable to bench 200 lbs wthout the use of testosterone? No, I just havn't met any that do. Men have on average 3X's the upper body strength of women. Most men can't bench 200 lbs so I thought it was a safe number. The hormones just are not there for women to bulk up to the same extent men can. "First, what types of strength can women not possess? " Great physical strength is the obvious one and probably what is most pertinant although I believe generally, greater psychological strength is the result of genetic roots also and is therefore a metaphysically given. As an example, a study recently showed that due to the fact that female infants have a tendency to hold the gaze of people longer do to better facial recognition abilities, they are held by caretakers 3 hours per day as opposed to 1 hour per day with male childern. The result is that from very early on males will tend to be less interested in the people around them and engage in more exploratory activities. This leads to a higher propensity for risk taking behavior and arguably more independence. Women on the other hand develop better linguistic skills and empathetic understanding in relationships with others. This early independence and risk taking behavior tends to create a greater degree of efficaciousness with regard to certain aspects of reality. One of those I think would be psychological strength. Soldiering on during difficult circumstances without emotional breakdown. (And yes, of course there can be exceptions) "Second, how does someone being shorter make it harder to psychologically look up to them? " When you think of a hero,abstractly, are they very often short and soft? Is that the understood definition of efficaciousness? "Would you not look up to Dagny Taggart if she was shorter than you? " I would look up to her as a person...but not romantically as a woman. "Third, of course I would never leave out my ideas of moral strength, integrity, etc. out of my romantic relationships. Did you really think I said I would try? I'm not sure what you mean by this statement." I think that you should try to. Rand is very clear that what a woman ought to look up to in a man is his masculinity, not any particular virtue she lacks. Those are necessarily in gauging a person but are not attached to either masculinity or femininity and as such are not a part of that attraction. "My position is not that it is somehow wrong for a woman to look up to the man she's romantically involved with, or wrong for her to be physiologically weaker in any way. I simply do not agree with Miss Rand's idea of hero-worship as the essence of a woman's femininity or her reasoning for claiming that, or that all rational women ought to look up to her lover. I believe that is a choice based on personal preferences, not based on the fact that she's female. The third part of my argument is that Miss Rand's stance here seems to be morally lopsided, yet she advocates moral and intellectual equality throughout her actual philosophy. OK...let me try another way....Ever watch one of those lame movies where the guy essentially sits locked up in the tower waiting for Rambet to come and rescue him. They are horrible not because a woman can't be heroic and a guy can't be weak, but because no one seriously believes that a woman like that would be romantically interested in a man she has to rescue. Women find firefighters and other heroic jobs like that sexy. Men don't(except the scantily clad firewomen in oversized suspenders you might see in a pinup ) There is a reason for that. I don't have any official information to back this up, just my personal experiences, but in every relationship I have been a part of or been close enough to the parties involved to know what was going on, there has been a period of time toward the beginning where guys get "tested" in a way. The woman is usually trying to see on some level what he's made of and how much she can control him. If he gives in then she usually looses interest pretty quick, if not they do pretty well. Like I said, this is my personal subjective understanding of what I see, but it has done a lot to confirm the fact for me that women are generally attracted to men who are stronger then them physically and psychologically in the context of the relationship. Not a lot stronger mind you, just a little bit stronger. For men the opposite is generally true. No doubt exceptions to this exist, and you may be one of them, but generally it is true. In most relationships men are the "metaphysically dominant" sex. It can be reversed of course, but Ayn Rand would argue and I would agree that in doing so, you are missing out on the most enjoyable aspect of a romantic relationship.
  5. aequalsa


    Sorry for not being clear. The example with the gun was not in regard to vigilantism. It was an attempt at a brief explanation as to why I think virtues are contextual. In this case with regard to honesty. The same principle could be applied to vigilantism. The initial example was one in which I would not hold someone immoral for taking the law into his own hands. In other words, where I think vigilantism would be acceptable. At any rate, thanks for the clarification. Gordon
  6. aequalsa


    I apologize but I had not read that thread. I don't usually have time to read everything and pick what interests me the most. I actually made a point to not ask about contexts where it is justified. I was simply trying to get a clarification on rationalcops oppinion that I referenced in my original post. In it he did say that objectivism does not support vigilantism and I figured he did not mean it without context but thought I would clarify anyways. I do not know him personally and I have read more mistaken things then the simple dropping of context which is why I was asking for clarification prior to criticizing him. Sorry for the confusion, Gordon
  7. miseleigh, I am curious. Do you find yourself attracted to men who are weaker then you? Not just physically, but mentally, psychologically or in any other respect. Because most men do find particular types of weakness in women very attractive. I am refering here, of course, to their being vulnerable, delicate, young, and so forth. Being delicate is not a moral failure for a woman, it is a fact of reality. Try as she might, nothing short of ingesting testosterone(becoming more male) is going to get her bench pressing 200lbs. Nothing short of daily application of sand paper is going to make her skin as thick or as coarse as a man's is. Men's strength(the particular types that women cannot posess) is what women should should worship and women's "weaknesses" (the particular types that men ought not posess) is what men cherish. Physiologically and psychologically it is difficult to look up to someone who is shorter then you by 8 inches. I believe this issue is much easier to understand if you look at it from the context of your own romantic experiences. If you try to look at it abstractly it is very difficult to leave out all of your ideas of moral strength. Integrity, honesty, and so forth. Best Regards, Gordon
  8. aequalsa


    "What makes you think Objectism rejects vigilante killing?" Hi Rationalcop, Without bringing up the question of whether or not current circumstances warrant it, since that oppinion is going to very greatly based on individual perception and circumstance, do you believe that vigilantism is ever justifiable by objectivist standards? I am imagining having a daughter killed by the abusive nephew of the mayor in the old west. I am not saying that I, would necessarily take him out, but if I knew someone else in that circumstance I can't say I'd hold it against him. In objectivist terms it seems to me that Ragnar's existence in the novel implies that it could be justified and moral in some circumstances. In other words, it, like most things, is a contextual issue. Like, for example, when a criminal is at your door with a gun asking where your children are, honesty with the criminal is not necessary. I guess I see it as similiar to this. So if the answer to my initial question is no, I would like to hear why it is never justifiable. Best Regards, Gordon
  9. I provided evidence which you laughed at. To be clear, if you do not accept the evidence I have sighted the burden of proof is on you to show why their numbers are to be not accepted. The circumstantial evidence you provide, that because they have a stance on the issue their numbers are wrong, is not substantive. A vested interest does not disqualify someone from being right about something. But to be fair I have spent the last 3 hours trying to corroberate your notion that they cost less then they pay and have not found a single number. Though I have found dozens of other places which confirm mine. "You come forward with numbers without doing any sort of checking to see if the numbers are accurate and present them as proof. " This aspersion on my charactor is wholly unfounded and unecessary and after this post have no intention of continuing this conversation with you. In actuality I have done a great deal of reading on the subject and have so far found no numbers to suggest significant differences in cost no matter which newspaper it is in. The notion that they pay in more in taxes then they take out in government services is something not even suggested by people on your side of the equation. Their arguments consist almost wholly of appeals to pity and charges of racism, neither of which are even remotely intellectual. You want legitamate numbers, walk into an LA county hospital and do an informal poll of how many are legal. multiply that number by the $6000 visit and you can see first hand how much they are costing. Free hospital visits at my expense make for very cheap health insurance. Or think of a typical illegal immigrant with 4 children in a public school. At 10K/ student thats $40,000 a year to educate his kids and if he is doing well he's making $30,000/year of which he might be paying as much as $7,000 in taxes. Who's payin the rest, do you think? Me, that's who. Stand on the border of one new mexico border ranch for one day and count. Stand at the garbage can of a roofing company in mid january and pull the w-2's out of the garbage. Count how many of those claimed 9 dependents...and if you are really curious, have the social security numbers on the w-2 researched and see if they actually match the name on them. The math is there and I see no point in arguing whether the cost is $48 billion/ year or $79billion. The point is that it is financially detrimental to anyone in this country who does not employ them. It is just another form of government subsidization. And for the record...if you glance over my posts I didn't say anything about deportation. All I have advocated was no longer allowing people in without proper documentation and not advocating open borders without first eliminating the welfare state. The combination of the two would be disaterous in practice.
  10. It absolutely can. I won't get into specifics much, but abstractly imagine being required to work for the common good of the family. Random punishments of all types for any manner of unspecified crimes, ostrization and physical abuse for verbal dissent, intentional holding back of the able for the benefit of the less able, and not just holding back...but expressly attempting to hurt the stong for being strong and benefiting the weak for being weak often at the expense of the more able, reversal and/or removal of cause and effect ..and these are just a few things I have experienced first hand and I promise you that they have an effect on your sense of life like you wouldn't believe. I left home when I was 18 and regret not leaving at 12 or earlier. And in reponse to the comment above that it is each person's decision to make as to how to live their life after that point, I agree to a certain extent, but when you say that, you have to realize what those decisons can mean in actuality. It could mean leaving home at a tender age with no money, no family,no friends, no support structure of any kind(economic, pychological, or otherwise). Walking 10 miles to work and back while hefting a 90lb jackhammer for all of the hours inbetween in the blazing hot texas sun for slightly above minimum wage. Begginning life in the above circumstances under a mountain of debt accrued by the improper use of your credit by your parents...I could go on and on about the "possible" repurcussions but you probably get the point. One ought to be very careful to make judgements about what someone ought to choose in those circumstances. It is very easy to say as an adult" I wouldn't put up with that" or "why would anyone stay?" But you have to put yourself in a universe like the one I describe without the benefit of half-way decent self-esteem from quasi-functional parents and the independence of mind achieved slowly over the 25+ years where many are slowly weened and simultaneously prepared for the world. I have also personally noticed an instant report with people from bad families(who have noticed the same thing) probably not unsimiliar in many ways to soldiers who have experienced combat. It can be so horrendous an experience that description pales next to the actuality and few can even begin to comprehend it after even a very detailed real life description without having experienced it themselves. And no, public schools in the US are not a reprieve or a beneficial influence in any way. Their impact is small to begin with by comparison to parents and that impact as many know is usually far from positive. So, yes, you do make your own decisions in life, but those decisions are only made with regard to the world you find yourself in. In other words, your freewill begins and ends with the small sphere of your perception. The best thing I have found to do with regard to altering your sense of life when coming from this environment is to experience as much of the world as possible first hand. It changes slowly over time of course, but as your world gets bigger and life gets longer those horrid begginings become a smaller and smaller percentage of the world as you know it. The people are smaller, the events are smaller, and their impact is therefore smaller. I highly recommend the morally right choice. It is the best of all possible outcomes in those circumstances but it is not easy and it is not pleasant and I, having made that decision would not dare to criticize someone else who chose otherwise.
  11. I don't follow exactly...was meyers briggs what the military favors or some other test?
  12. I too am very fond of Nietche, but my first introduction to him was a translation(more of a rewrite actually) of his final unfinished treatise, Will to Power By H.L. Mencken. It was nietche whitewashed through a reasonable mind and was absolutely excellent. Anyone curious about his philosophy would do well to read that book. Very intelligible and almost objectivistish in tone.
  13. Not being annoying is along the lines of what I have attempted to do. No need to beat them over the head with an Atlas Shrugged. But when you are having a conversation and they say something like, "The government should provide healthcare" or whatever, I can't sit there and let that sort of thing be said without explaining to them all of the ramifications that a belief like that entails. So multiply this by the hodgepodge of beliefs most people hold and over the course of a year or so and there are going to be a lot of changes on someones part, not likely to be me, because, well, I am right about most of these things. Or at least integrated enough to justify them. So do you mean that you ought to let them hold irrational beliefs like what I mentioned above, and focus on what the good you find in them? I agree with that. Though I do have trouble imagining a happy marxist. Maybe a happy "mixed economist" would be better . So regarding you and your wife, did her changing her philosophic beliefs cause any difficulty psychologically with your relationship or was the transition relatively smooth?
  14. That's a good point. Maybe that is the correct question to ask. I have always attributed that to genetically based neurological differences. To be sure, I have known some women, brilliant at math and plenty of men who have great difficulty with concepts as abstract as long division, but the bell curves of ability in that regard are definately skewed. So what do you think? Why is engineering, math and physics repellent to women? Or, what causes the disinterest in ideas?
  15. Thanks for the links, Olex. They were interesting and I read through them, but did not find anything in particular that addressed my question(#2 in particular) Was there a specific spot where it was discussed that I missed? Thanks again, Gordon
  16. "On the human imagination events produce the effects of time, thus he who has travelled far and seen much is apt to fancy that he has lived long."-James fenimore cooper first sentence of his deerslayer novel. I've always loved that quote. Life really is about your experiences. 28 years in front of the television will not make wisdom as fast as 3 years experiencing the world first hand. Unfortunately, though I would like to tell you that 18 is a magic age where people take you seriously, I can't because it isnt. It will happen gradually and if your experiences are at all like mine, you might start to notice a slight difference in treatment by the time you are 25 or so. In general you will have great difficulty changing peoples minds, but this is especially true when they are older then you. A couple dynamics are at work there. First when you are young and have your life ahead of you, you tend to be looking at what will work for your future. This, for most people tends to alter to trying to justify what they have already done as they age. It is really difficult(though not impossible) to make great mistakes and carry heavy regrets by the time you are 17. 72 years of living according to faulty philosophy and its almost guaranteed. So what Kind of philosophy do you need when you have made mistakes that damaged your life or others lives? One that a)forgives you and b)is sufficiently vague that you can alter it to fit the actions in life. So any attempt to ask someone to give up the one thing which allows them to live with themselves far after the mistake can be ammended, is all but certain to fail. The other thing is that your parents and grandparents are supposed to know more then their children and grandchildren and unless they are possessed of great self esteem will not stand being educated by thier students. Same applies usually with trying to teach your highschool teacher or college prof. My best advice is to not take any of it seriously. It has nothing to do with you and everything to do with their insecurites. Imagine if you were speaking to a 46 year old government employee and trying to convince him that the overpaid government job he has held for the last 20 years amounts to little more then foodstamps and a welfare check and that he ought to go out and try working for a living in the real world. If you were unable to convince him(which you would be) it would have nothing to do with you, your age, your method of explaining, or your overall knowledge of objec tivism. There is nothing you could say that would change his mind because for him to do so would obliterate his self-esteem. So when you find that someone you are speaking to seems completely incapable of accepting reason, start asking questions to find their vested interest. Once you find that, then you know whether you need to give up and stop wasting your time or how to put it so that they can change their mind and agree with you without having to admit to mistakes in their life. Hope that helps, Best regards Gordon
  17. [Mod's note: Split from earlier thread. -sNerd] This is an interesting subject to me and one that I haven't really explored so I would be interested in hearing others oppinions about it. This might be a new subject(so moderators feel free to move me around if you deem it necessary) I'm certain that I am not the only guy on this list who has noticed a particular shortage of objectivist gals. I have been fortunate to have known quite a few but usually in circumstances where they were unavailable. So the women I have dated have been what you might consider less then perfect philosophically. Obviously they had traits that I valued but were not a full package, if you know what I mean. Short story, they had to change. Most of the time it was not a concious act of trying to improve them, but it was bound to happen. I gather that you can't argue against an objectivist for very long without conceding or giving up and moving on which is to say that you can't argue with reality for very long without giving up and moving on. On the one hand, it is of course a value to be challenging to the person you are with. I find that the thing I enjoy most about other people is that trait in particular because they can serve as an impetus for constant improvement. But when it is one sided to the extent it usually is, it seems to imbalance the relationship in a mentor/student kind of way that it usually the precursor to the end of passionate interest. So I have a few questions concerning this issue. 1) Is it reasonable to date someone who is not what you want exactly while hoping they improve/try to change them or should one honestly kick back for 12 years and wait for dagny, galtstyle? 2) Has anyone else been in this situation(from either side) and do you have any concrete(or abstract) advice as to how to encourage growth and change while not causing the aforementioned imbalance?Or even comments about what not to do? (I have a few ideas of my own but don't want to color the conversation until I hear what others have to say) 3)Why are there so few objectivist women as a percentage? In otherwords, what about the philosophy is so repellent?
  18. "I may have been mistaken, in that I thought California allowed illegal immigrants general access to welfare state benefits, but now I think that isn't the case -- Generally, illegal immigrants are ineligible for publish assistance. If California was dumb enough to pass a law extending free benefits to illegal immigrants, that is their fault; or if they are stupid enough to ignore their own law (which at least existed 10 years ago), they are to blame." You are not entirely mistaken. They are eligible for something but not others. That report I referenced above outlines some of it. The things they are eligible for are significant. And it truly is not only in california. I have lived and worked there as well as colorado and texas and it applies in those places as well though the quantities are not quite as high. Regarding your issue you don't have much to worry about yet. Last year in the entire US a total os 3 employers were prosecuted for hiring illegals. So the odds are not high yet. To be clear, I do not think it is the responsibility of business to sort out this mess and don't think they ought to be required to perform background checks and what not. That is the job of the government which ought to be more busy guarding the border then stealing our cookies. I don't believe for a minute that they could not keep out most if not all of the people entering illegally. If they do "crack down on employers" as many advocate it will in all probability be a horrible solution that makes the problems worse. That of course is the governments speciality so I have little doubt that that is what will occur if anything changes. I can't wait to be in that pickle where if I wrongfully deny someone a job I am sued for discrimination and if I give them a job and they turn out to be illegal I am fined by the government.
  19. I see. So there lies our conflict of interest. If they are let into the country and given amnesty or whatever and you hire them, I get to pay their medical bills or I see guns. If we do not let them stay and crackdown on enforcement and you hire them then you see guns. The issue is kinda like a hot potato. "You deal with the government...no I don't want it, you deal with the government....no i don't want it...." Isn't that unfortunate how the government can manufacturer conflict all the way down to us by pointing guns in our general direction?
  20. Ok that makes sense. If you tried to make it applicable to any rights denying countries that wouldpretty much be all of them. "The bottom line is that advocating the legal exclusion of foreigners from my country is an initiation of force against me and my economic interests, which takes higher priority in my set of concerns than some problem that the loons in California have saddled themselves with, with their welfare utopia. I wish the Californians all the best, but it is not my duty to ensure their survival, property, liberty, success, or happiness at my own expense, especially when they have created their own welfare state." The thing is, these problems affect all states and the federal government as well. The problem is spreading and will spread. California, arizona and texas are just closest and have taken the first hit. How is it an initiation of force. I don't follow your reasoning.
  21. I apologize but I don't see the humor. If it is ad hominem sarcasm I do not appreciate it. I am unfamiliar with FAIR. I thought that since the washington post is a pretty liberal rag, the fact that they printed those numbers would indicate that they were at least fair if not lowball. If FAIR is an organization prone to inaccuarate reporting, you can simply inform me of that. Laughing me down is not something I take to be a mature response to an honest debate. I will be happy to look at any numbers you can provide which you consider to be more objective. In fact I would be excited to learn that as a whole they were not an economic drain and paid in at least as much as they take out. I could then in good concious hire them for significantly lower pay. In response to your staements, of course they are estimates. Not very easy to get accurate numbers on people that are off the grid by definition. But if you talk to folks who live or have lived on our southern border, the million people a year number is very believable as they watch droves walk across their property(tresspassing illegally)everyday. I of course cannot answer for any discrepencies between the actual report and the article. I guess anyone can make a typo. In fact I noticed that here http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/ca_costs.pdf?docID=141 they list $3.2 billion as the cost of educating illegals and $4.5 billion as the cost of educating the children of illegals. Not the 2.2 billion you mention above. But truly those details of whether it is 2.2 or 3.2 billion are somewhat unimportant. What is important is that it's a hell of a lot and is likely to increase dramatically over the next 40 years. Even at the 2.2 billion you wrote...consider that that is 2,200 millions of dollars. So that is the equivelent of taking the live savings of 2,200 successful people and obliterating it for those who did not earn it every year. I take issue with anyone advocating something that results in destruction of that magnitude. And please keep in mind that this amount excludes many other programs, all 49 other states as well as city and federal expenditures-I shudder to think what that would add up to. So how many top notch producers need to be sacrificed to give these poor people a chance?
  22. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...02115-6766r.htm "Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday. " Always need to be careful with words like "can't". "You totally missed my point which is the "in thing" now to white wash all illegals as welfare grubbing/ raza "give us back California" radicals as defense of the immigration quotas. Compromise with an immoral system for short-term gain only gains even more long-term destruction. Let the welfare system find where it's wrong, don't continue to feed it. This move to try and sustain the welfare system is the same thing that kept Dagny out of the Gultch." I can't help but to continue to feed it. I only have a couple guns...not nearly enough to take on the IRS. And as long as more and more people clamor for more and more unearned wealth, they'll take more and more from me. So explain to me why it would be in my longterm rational best interests to invite people in who are only exacerbating the problem. The only one I see is heavily dependent on pessimism. I see what your saying, David, and as a seperate issue, I would agree. The problem is that the two issues are conected when viewed in their actual contexts. To increase or permit illegal immigration is to expand the welfare state. "Restricting immigration, especially people who are escaping from collectivist dictatorships which take people's lives and property, is tantamount to the endorsement of those dictatorships. So I saw your tantamount, and raised you a tantamount. Plus, two wrongs don't make a right." I don't believe that they make up a majority of the illegal immigrants. As I understand it, people living under oppressive regimes are able to get citizenship here easier then otherwise. And even if they do make of a sizable percentage, while I feel for them and wish them all the best, it is not my duty to ensure their survival, property, liberty, success, or happiness. And unfortunately we live in a country that ties their immigration and "best interests" to my wallet. "There can be no conflict of interest between rational men." ...Except after force has been introduced into the equation which it has. I agree with that. If there was some sort of moratorium on the use of government services you would be more likely to get the ones who truly only want to work. I find that to be a very satisfactory short term solution. A secondary benefit of this would be that it would simultaneously solve the issue of downward pressure on wages. If they had to pay for medical care and whatnot, they would have to demand higher wages to pay for them selves. Currently these free things serve to essentially subsidize certain industry's payroll.
  23. Well you have to try to figure out why your version where all illegal immigrants are hardworking honest folks that would never accept government handouts are costing the state of california's medicaid program alone $5 Billion dollars/ year. " There comes a point in time where the only way we're going to get rid of the welfare system is to stop trying to save it. Quotas are immoral in the first place, and if your arguing in favor of an immoral measure so the welfare system doesn't go bankrupt, you're arguing in favor of continuing the welfare system." Then our disagreement seems to come down to a question of whether or not our system can be save. On a bad day, I would agree with you. In fact, I'd go one further and suggest that we find out what social programs the rest of the world has in place and fund all of them. Then encourage the government to socialize medicine, regulate the internet, and double the size of the FDA. That way we could be bankrupt in six months. On a better day, I like to think that the direction this country has been moving for the last century could be reversed without having to suffer the devastation of what would become a worldwide depression. If you knew me, you would be aware that I'd be the last person on the planet to be in favor of continuing the welfare system. I am just aware of how humans in general respond to the notion of the unearned. Walk down the street in a crowded area and hand how $10 bills. Count what percentage of people turn them down. Then extrapolate that percentage to 500,000 people/ year who know that if they get across the border and acquire a fake ID and SS number they will immediately get free medical care and free school for their kids and if they pop out another child while here, then they can get all the other stuff while paying virtually nothing in taxes. Ask the illegal's that work for you where they or their kids go when their sick or hurt. Probably a hospital. If they have insurance that you are providing then great...but be aware that that makes your employees the exceptions as most do not. It is, but it is not my job to insure the rights of people living elsewhere. Our government is not responsible for ensuring the rights of anyone but it's own citizens. And yes, I would like both eliminated. But why encourage a problem. If we already let the government steal $4 Trillion dollars/ Year, why try to raise it to $8 Trillion? To me, this is tantamount to encouraging the creation of more government programs as I mentioned in my post above. I don't believe that it benefits me in any longterm way to encourage the growth of government programs any more then it does to start new ones.
  24. Ouch...Smells? like Rationalism? No need to be ornry. I am also "professionally acquainted" with a large number of foreigners who are here illegally (which, I'll point out, are the particualar types being dscussed in this thread) and I have known dozens personally who take as much advantage of the system as they can(welfare bums). So if you want to call my first hand experience rationalism, feel free. I know what I know. And further, even a precursory inquiry into the costs of benefits paid by the government for illegal immigrants vs the amount paid in taxes by them will corroberate my view. Additionally it is obvious to me that when people have an oppurtunity to get "free stuff" of any kind, very, very few refuse it. Especially those who are less wealthy and "need" it, which illegal immigrants tend to be. I agree that quotas on immigration are improper and probably immoral, in the abstract. But, currently, to even consider removing them while maintaining our current welfare state is to consider economic suicide. Things have to be fixed in the right order. End the socialist nonsense first then try to have an open immigration policy. The other way around is clearly not in my or any other americans best interests.
  • Create New...