How to Respond to This Guy?

[inflamesdjk02]

Me: I'm for less government, free markets, abiding by the Constitution, and against welfare and entitlement programs which encourage laziness and illegal immigration.

Other Guy:

"how can a person be considered illegal or alien? i mean i understand the immigration laws. but on a real human level how do you demean a human being by catagorizing them as an "illegal alien" simply cause the world economic system forces them to cross a border to provide for their family. 98% of the people in this country are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. most of those descendants came to present US lands controlled by Indians/Idigenous people, France, Spain, Mexico, or the US as either undocumented immigrants, frontiersman without immigration permission from the people of that area or slaves/contract labor/indentured servants, not properly processed and vetted immigrants. the "free market" depends on cheap labor and most major companies either utilize undocumented labor or have subcontractors that do.

if govt. is so bad, do you also propose privitizing the police, fire dept, military, homeland security, border control, schools, roads, sanitztion, water dept, parks, trash collection...

there is no "free market" that concept has always been more theory than reality. currently, capital has more freedom for investment and profit making and less taxation than at any time in a century. this has resulted in a world economic meltdown and declining standards of living for the majority of the population in the poorer 2/3 of the world and much of the wealthy countries as well. meanwhile, capital investment and the "free market" is no longer about local business, investment in production and fair trade systems. The vast majority of all investment capital now goes into FIRE - Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Capitalism is primarily a financial shell game in the current world economy. "free trade" as folks think of it may exist on some level but it is a tiny fraction of world sconomic activity."

And:

"most of the "illegal immigrants" come from countries that have been colonized and thoroughly exploited for their human and material resources. the international commerce laws have been written (by the wealthy) to give capital the right to go anywhere it wants (generally on whatever terms it wants). poor people don't typically have a say in how laws are written (for those citing the constitution study 18th century american history and learn how much resistance there was from tradesman, small landowners, and skilled and unskilled laborers toward the founding fathers -who were mostly bankers and huge landowners- and laws of that time.. in fact many of the more sacred notions of our constitution and legal system were concessions made by the wealthy founders to avert massive class warfare.)

if you look at Mexico, US agrobusiness has made small scale mexican farming obsolete. US and Chinese products have made much of Mexican trades and production obsolete. the rural population has been totally displaced economically by foreign (and complicit domestic) influence. the people then are driven by economic realities to do what capitalism by its own laws requires them to do - migrate toward job opportunities, even though they usually dislike the work, long for their families and wish they had a better alternative."

And finally:

"various analytical stuidies have shown that undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in services. they pay sales taxes, usually get ss taxes taken out of checks (using fake or fraudulent ss #s to gain employment, with no possibility of ever getting those benefits back), etc... and meanwhile try to avoid interaction w govt services and bureaucracy as much as possible to avoid deportation.

my main points are 1: it is paradoxical to be for "free trade" and capitalism and upset about illegal immigration as the mobility of cheap labor is one of the foundations of that economic system.

and 2: it is indecent to make people illegal and alien for simply trying to survive economic conditions imposed on them or trying to reunite with family. they're coming here to pay their bills, cause our companies and banks spent the past century making a fortune screwing up their economies."

Any thoughts?

[Epic]

He actually has some good points on the positive aspects of illegal immigration.

In general, illegal immigration is such a tough issue, because natural rights says force should not be applied to innocent people (removing them from country) but a utilitarian analysis shows that there are problems with unfettered immigration combined with a welfare state.

The worst point made:

"there is no "free market" that concept has always been more theory than reality."

WTF?? A 'free market' characterizes human interaction without the presence of coercion from government. It is the separation of business and state.

[Chieftain1776]

my main points are 1: it is paradoxical to be for "free trade" and capitalism and upset about illegal immigration as the mobility of cheap labor is one of the foundations of that economic system.

It's a tough issue among the pro-liberty crowd. The reason I'm a still a "closed borders" type is security and that while immigrants may contribute more than they consume (this is still debated) they are big government voters b/c of typically being low wage earners (i.e. even Americans who earn less vote for big government..it's not due to cultural issues which some on the Right claim). And legalizing immigration undermines some of his points (avoidance from government services etc.)


2: it is indecent to make people illegal and alien for simply trying to survive economic conditions imposed on them or trying to reunite with family. they're coming here to pay their bills, cause our companies and banks spent the past century making a fortune screwing up their economies."

As mentioned the first part is debated within the liberty movement a rejoinder is that their desire for a better standard of living doesn't mean it's incumbent upon us to sacrifice ours (again an influx of low wage immigrants means big government). The second part is socialist revisionism. Here's a nice documentary that I think is persuasive:

Globalisation is Good - Johan Norberg on Globalization (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680&hl=en#)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

California uses Private Fire Departments funded through homeowner insurance. They have an actual monetary incentive to provide the best service not merely a benevolent one.

What does he mean by Homeland Security? It is an Orwellian definition. They aren't securing anything, they are the epitome of liberty and rights violators. Same with police. I'm not against police whatsoever, I'm against it being a coercive involuntary enforcement wing of the State. Make funding the police voluntary and you will see a much better quality of service. Border control? If we had a free-market there would be no need for "border control" in a Nation sense. As for "border control" does he mean the right of self-defense against aggression on your personal property? By your hearts intent go by yourself a M240.

It will certainly be FAR cheaper than they are now because all military weaponry is subsidized by our Government. Schools? Check. Public Education is a massive failure. I suppose if you like a Nation of imbeciles you will support it. Or if you like a Nation of sheep that are incoherent and hive-minded. If you actually value education however you cannot be for Government ran education. It's quite silly to expect the Government to actually educate our population since it goes against what they're aiming for; Obedience.

Roads. Ditto. History proves how private infrastructure vastly better than Government subsidized.

You might want to ask him why in today's world a loaf of bread costs 2$ yet merely 40 years ago it was 15-25cents. Ask him if the debauchery of our currency and the insipidness of inflationary taxation which creates poverty, is worth the price to pay. Seems pretty funny that these institutions are there to so-called protect you, but what's left to protect when you are a slave to the State?

As for the immigration. Sum it up simply. If you for the Welfare State then you must be for the militizaration of our borders and the waste of money, time, energy, and manpower along with the destruction of privacy and liberty. If you are against the Welfare State then immigration is not a problem.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's a tough issue among the pro-liberty crowd. The reason I'm a still a "closed borders" type is security and that while immigrants may contribute more than they consume (this is still debated) they are big government voters b/c of typically being low wage earners (i.e. even Americans who earn less vote for big government..it's not due to cultural issues which some on the Right claim). And legalizing immigration undermines some of his points (avoidance from government services etc.)



As mentioned the first part is debated within the liberty movement a rejoinder is that their desire for a better standard of living doesn't mean it's incumbent upon us to sacrifice ours (again an influx of low wage immigrants means big government). The second part is socialist revisionism. Here's a nice documentary that I think is persuasive:

Globalisation is Good - Johan Norberg on Globalization (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680&hl=en#)

If you get rid of the State then you get rid of that problem no? The State is anathema to liberty!

[John of Des Moines]

Illegal immigrants drive wages down.

[Andrew-Austin]

there is no "free market" that concept has always been more theory than reality. currently, capital has more freedom for investment and profit making and less taxation than at any time in a century. this has resulted in a world economic meltdown and declining standards of living for the majority of the population in the poorer 2/3 of the world and much of the wealthy countries as well.


"Free market" is a term to describe free economic activity, how is it a myth exactly? We might not have truly free markets today, but so what that has to due with government regulation and legislation? Saying that there is more freedom for investment and less taxation than any point in history just sounds like a claim that he has pulled out of his ass, and it certainly would have nothing to do with the economic meltdown even if true. If he is going to make the extraordinary claim that free investment and the profit incentive lead to depressions, ask him for extraordinary evidence to support these claims. So if we had more government management of the economy than we already have now and more taxation the global recession could have been avoided? Yes and maybe rainbows and lollipops would fly out of my ass too. You can explain the meltdown by explaining the Austrian business cycle theory which puts the blame primarily on the Federal Reserve. Checkout Mises.org.



if govt. is so bad, do you also propose privitizing the police, fire dept, military, homeland security, border control, schools, roads, sanitztion, water dept, parks, trash collection..

I'm not going to tell you to become a market voluntaryist, but its pretty easy to defend economically that privatizing such services would be better. If we made General Motors the nation's only monopoly automobile manufacturer and started funding it through taxation (we nationalize it), you have removed all of its incentives to actually make a good and reasonably priced product, you will destroy its efficiency and quality. Coercive monopolies by default do crappier jobs at providing goods and services than free market firms who must obtain revenue voluntarily while having open competition.

I do agree with him that being against immigration is incompatible with being for free markets. The mass immigration we see today has little to do with capitalism however, and is more of a result of Mexico's economic policy and the United State's protectionism. And immigration is only problematic to the degree that the US government engages in handing out free goodies that these immigrants don't pay for, immigration is subsidized/encouraged.

[Promontorium]

"currently, capital has more freedom for investment and profit making and less taxation than at any time in a century. this has resulted in a world economic meltdown and declining standards of living for the majority of the population in the poorer 2/3 of the world and much of the wealthy countries as well.

Not worth my time. I would walk away from that idiot.

[inflamesdjk02]

I summarized and conveyed the above information. I know it's probably futile, but this is what he comes back with:

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

"my comment was that there is currently less taxation of the wealthy and regulation of investment than there's been in about a century (not history). i don't claim that every post i make is 100% accurate and without hyperbole, but american tax rates on the wealthy and regulation on industry, especially financial, increased from the early 1900s until the 1970s (with big drops in taxation and regulation in the reagan and bush2 admins). the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) has increased from about 6% of our GDP in early 1970s to about 120% of GDP when bubble burst last yr. The creation of a monopoly capitalist system built on FIRE, with minimal investment in production, manufacturing, and smaller community based businesses created an asymmetrical economy that - the now prophetic - critical, and usually marxist, economists that i was reading a bit of a few years back warned would collapse around now.

Most serious economists will now agree that the current world recession is almost exclusively a result of this imbalance and bubble. the funny thing is more and more mainstream classical economists are studying the work of the marxist economists who analyzed and predicted the crash before it occurred. (i.e Foster and Magdoff's "The Great Financial Crisis") they just differ in their solutions to the current crisis. the marxists, of course, see socialism as the answer. the capitalists are split between those who believe a new FIRE bubble is the only answer, those who want a return to production and manufacturing investment, and those who want a mix w government playing a more active and efficient role in job creation.

as far as "free market" you are pretty much right in that one definition is the freedom of business interaction without govt regulation. i say it's a myth, because the free market depends on government protection of property rights, the rights of capital to invest freely/or the right of capital to impose it's will. meanwhile, the american government has always used laws, bureacracies, force to improve opportunities of favored investors and companies or limit the rights of politically marginalized investors, labor or business. the american government has also used military force both within and outside our borders to influence conditions for the benefit of certain favored economic interests (Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in US history's book "War is a Racket" is a good read in this regard).

the establishment of the free market in the americas was juiced by unfree labor - slaves, contract workers, indentured servants - for the first half of American history. Some historians state that from the early 1600s to the early 1800s most US economic activity (north and south) was directly or indirectly connected to the triangular trade - rum, slaves, sugar. once labor rights became commonplace by the mid 20th century our free market economy quickly became dependent on FIRE bubbles as the return on investment in real production activities with fairly paid labor no longer provided a high enough rate of return.

philosophically, it often comes down to whether you believe labor creates wealth or wealth creates labor. i believe that labor creates wealth and the "free market" system (as a dominant model, not in every situation) depends on exploited labor or fake wealth bubbles to maintain itself. i'm not saying that govt needs to be in the middle. in fact, most of the time our govt interferes w the economy it is in the interests of "the free market"."

[Chieftain1776]

I summarized and conveyed the above information. I know it's probably futile, but this is what he comes back with:

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

"my comment was that there is currently less taxation of the wealthy and regulation of investment than there's been in about a century (not history). i don't claim that every post i make is 100% accurate and without hyperbole, but american tax rates on the wealthy and regulation on industry, especially financial, increased from the early 1900s until the 1970s (with big drops in taxation and regulation in the reagan and bush2 admins). the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) has increased from about 6% of our GDP in early 1970s to about 120% of GDP when bubble burst last yr. The creation of a monopoly capitalist system built on FIRE, with minimal investment in production, manufacturing, and smaller community based businesses created an asymmetrical economy that - the now prophetic - critical, and usually marxist, economists that i was reading a bit of a few years back warned would collapse around now.

The Austrian school and now mainstream economists are crediting government interventions as creating a "Socialised Loss and Privatized Profit" environment. When there's a downturn what happens? A cut in the interest rates. When a bank is about to go under what happens? A massive bailout. Investors, CEO's, creditors etc. are gambling with taxpayer money. If the house spots you a grand you're going to take bigger risks than you would if your money was at stake.


Most serious economists will now agree that the current world recession is almost exclusively a result of this imbalance and bubble. the funny thing is more and more mainstream classical economists are studying the work of the marxist economists who analyzed and predicted the crash before it occurred. (i.e Foster and Magdoff's "The Great Financial Crisis")

The Austrian school predicted it. So well in fact that these articles (http://mises.org/story/3128) written 4 to 5 years ago can be read as an accurate autopsy of the last year's events. "Mr. Bailout" (http://mises.org/daily/1627) is remarkable. And of course there's Peter Schiff (note the "conservatives" Laffer and Stein he's being mocked by...but the Keynesian takes the cake for literally laughing at him):

YouTube - Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 - 2007 (2nd Edition) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw)


as far as "free market" you are pretty much right in that one definition is the freedom of business interaction without govt regulation. i say it's a myth, because the free market depends on government protection of property rights, the rights of capital to invest freely/or the right of capital to impose it's will. meanwhile, the american government has always used laws, bureacracies, force to improve opportunities of favored investors and companies or limit the rights of politically marginalized investors, labor or business. the american government has also used military force both within and outside our borders to influence conditions for the benefit of certain favored economic interests (Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in US history's book "War is a Racket" is a good read in this regard).

the establishment of the free market in the americas was juiced by unfree labor - slaves, contract workers, indentured servants - for the first half of American history. Some historians state that from the early 1600s to the early 1800s most US economic activity (north and south) was directly or indirectly connected to the triangular trade - rum, slaves, sugar. once labor rights became commonplace by the mid 20th century our free market economy quickly became dependent on FIRE bubbles as the return on investment in real production activities with fairly paid labor no longer provided a high enough rate of return.

Well War is Racket is a favorite in the liberty movement. Other than that it's mainly revisionism which leads to debates about historical events and are mainly ideological not grounded in irrefutable facts. Thomas DiLoronzo's How Capitalism Saved America (http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Saved-America-Pilgrims/dp/1400083311/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258047130&sr=8-1) is a great primer on American economic history from a libertarian point of view.

And finally
"philosophically, it often comes down to whether you believe labor creates wealth or wealth creates labor. i believe that labor creates wealth and the "free market" system (as a dominant model, not in every situation) depends on exploited labor or fake wealth bubbles to maintain itself. i'm not saying that govt needs to be in the middle. in fact, most of the time our govt interferes w the economy it is in the interests of "the free market"."

There is a divide in between limited government and those who believe the state is merely an oppressor that, by its nature, will favor one interest over another. His capital/labor is an classic Marxist trope and in many cases a false dichotomy. What is a cook that saves his money and accumulates skills and then opens up a restaurant? The "oppressed" laborer used his earnings from his "oppressor" to accumulate capital and experience that he will use in his new "exploitative" enterprise.

[paulitics]

if govt. is so bad, do you also propose privitizing the police, fire dept, military, homeland security, border control, schools, roads, sanitztion, water dept, parks, trash collection...

Typical liberal response who doesn't know the difference between local, state, and federal. Federal has no role in anything except to protect individual liberty. Most libertarians are not against the services he lists here, with the exception of homeland security.




there is no "free market" that concept has always been more theory than reality. currently, capital has more freedom for investment and profit making and less taxation than at any time in a century. this has resulted in a world economic meltdown and declining standards of living for the majority of the population in the poorer 2/3 of the world and much of the wealthy countries as well meanwhile, capital investment and the "free market" is no longer about local business, investment in production and fair trade systems. The vast majority of all investment capital now goes into FIRE - Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Capitalism is primarily a financial shell game in the current world economy. "free trade" as folks think of it may exist on some level but it is a tiny fraction of world sconomic activity."

He is trying to sound intellectual because he reads Krugman, and maybe has taken some Keynsian economic courses. Taxation has never been lower? Get real.

I would almost say, don't waste your time on this guy. He is too far gone, and believes socialism is the answer.

[paulitics]

I summarized and conveyed the above information. I know it's probably futile, but this is what he comes back with:

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

"my comment was that there is currently less taxation of the wealthy and regulation of investment than there's been in about a century (not history). i don't claim that every post i make is 100% accurate and without hyperbole, but american tax rates on the wealthy and regulation on industry, especially financial, increased from the early 1900s until the 1970s (with big drops in taxation and regulation in the reagan and bush2 admins). the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) has increased from about 6% of our GDP in early 1970s to about 120% of GDP when bubble burst last yr. The creation of a monopoly capitalist system built on FIRE, with minimal investment in production, manufacturing, and smaller community based businesses created an asymmetrical economy that - the now prophetic - critical, and usually marxist, economists that i was reading a bit of a few years back warned would collapse around now.

Most serious economists will now agree that the current world recession is almost exclusively a result of this imbalance and bubble. the funny thing is more and more mainstream classical economists are studying the work of the marxist economists who analyzed and predicted the crash before it occurred. (i.e Foster and Magdoff's "The Great Financial Crisis") they just differ in their solutions to the current crisis. the marxists, of course, see socialism as the answer. the capitalists are split between those who believe a new FIRE bubble is the only answer, those who want a return to production and manufacturing investment, and those who want a mix w government playing a more active and efficient role in job creation.

as far as "free market" you are pretty much right in that one definition is the freedom of business interaction without govt regulation. i say it's a myth, because the free market depends on government protection of property rights, the rights of capital to invest freely/or the right of capital to impose it's will. meanwhile, the american government has always used laws, bureacracies, force to improve opportunities of favored investors and companies or limit the rights of politically marginalized investors, labor or business. the american government has also used military force both within and outside our borders to influence conditions for the benefit of certain favored economic interests (Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in US history's book "War is a Racket" is a good read in this regard).

the establishment of the free market in the americas was juiced by unfree labor - slaves, contract workers, indentured servants - for the first half of American history. Some historians state that from the early 1600s to the early 1800s most US economic activity (north and south) was directly or indirectly connected to the triangular trade - rum, slaves, sugar. once labor rights became commonplace by the mid 20th century our free market economy quickly became dependent on FIRE bubbles as the return on investment in real production activities with fairly paid labor no longer provided a high enough rate of return.

philosophically, it often comes down to whether you believe labor creates wealth or wealth creates labor. i believe that labor creates wealth and the "free market" system (as a dominant model, not in every situation) depends on exploited labor or fake wealth bubbles to maintain itself. i'm not saying that govt needs to be in the middle. in fact, most of the time our govt interferes w the economy it is in the interests of "the free market"."

Production creates wealth. Labor does not always produce wealth. Paying guys to dig ditches and fill them back up does not produce wealth.

Those influenced by Marx, love to include the slavery issue in every debate. I would not go there unless you want to debate for hours specifally that time period. But this is 2009,and it is pretty irrelevent to the problems of the federal reserve, bubbles, etc.


Also, I figured he read marxist economic books just by reading his first response, and the style of his writing. He is too far gone if he believes they are close to being right IMHO.

[fisharmor]

Yeah, the first part of this country's economy was built on slavery.
Then because a free market existed here, industry took over.

And when the industrial economy unjustifiably attacked the slavery economy, the industrial economy won unequivocally despite its valiant attempts at losing in the beginning of the war... proving which was the superior model, despite the impropriety in its methods.

Then the "captains of industry" conspired to force compulsory schooling on us, based on the Prussian school system, because it would make for dimwitted and spineless workers, slaves themselves save for the lack of the lash and a constant stream of diversions to keep their minds off of how much their work is killing their souls. (Is it really any surprise how many of us post here while at work?)

Add in a war every 20 years for good measure, when the ideas for reality TV are thin.

Too bad our bastion of freedom has been infiltrated by the system's apologists, like this fellow. Remember, you're not going to convince him. But internet discussions are more good for the people reading, not the people participating.

[LibertyMage]

"how can a person be considered illegal or alien? i mean i understand the immigration laws. but on a real human level how do you demean a human being by catagorizing them as an "illegal alien" simply cause the world economic system forces them to cross a border to provide for their family. 98% of the people in this country are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. most of those descendants came to present US lands controlled by Indians/Idigenous people, France, Spain, Mexico, or the US as either undocumented immigrants, frontiersman without immigration permission from the people of that area or slaves/contract labor/indentured servants, not properly processed and vetted immigrants. the "free market" depends on cheap labor and most major companies either utilize undocumented labor or have subcontractors that do.

He is right. Free people should have a right to travel wherever they want. However, free people should have a right to run a business across borders without punitive taxes at whatever wage they see fit. If that were the case immigration and wage disparities would not be a problem. He is also right that the free market relies on cheap labor. That is to say that cheap labor lowers the cost of everything. In a free market, prices fall - they don't increase or become "inflated".


if govt. is so bad, do you also propose privitizing the police, fire dept, military, homeland security, border control, schools, roads, sanitztion, water dept, parks, trash collection...

Border control and homeland security don't need to be privatized, they need to be eliminated. They rest needs to be privatized.

Be careful, this is a common liberal talking point that they use to quickly push libertarians to the radical end of the spectrum. That is a good thing for making you clearly define your own beliefs about public ownership vs. private ownership. Its hard to articulate at times.

Here is a starting point for learning how private ownership and free markets work. I'm sure there are better starting points but this is good nonetheless.

YouTube - Free market environmentalism by Walter Block Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo)


there is no "free market" that concept has always been more theory than reality.

There has never been any sort of perfect economic model for any type of economy. However, there have been mostly "capitalistic" or "communistic" models. In the mostly capitalistic system people experienced booms in their standard of living. In the mostly communistic systems people starved to death because their economies couldn't even produce food.


currently, capital has more freedom for investment and profit making and less taxation than at any time in a century. this has resulted in a world economic meltdown and declining standards of living for the majority of the population in the poorer 2/3 of the world and much of the wealthy countries as well.

Capitalism, at its core, is based on the free flow of capital. Via this free flow, capital is accumulated by individuals and invested in enterprise, creates institutions in which capital flows through the system. Economists call this phenomenon capital accumulation. Lay people call it savings.

Our economy, at its core, is not capitalism. There is no savings. The only force perpetuating this economy is the bubble blown and re-blown by the Federal Reserve. This is why the government is chomping at the bit for the stimulus and TARP. This bubble is only possible via inflation. Our economy, at its core, is not capitalism - it is inflationism.

Capitalism requires free flows of capital, floating interest rates, unmitigated success and unmitigated failure. Instead we have labor laws, protectionist tariffs and regulations, subsidies to prevent market participation, bailouts, interest rates fixed by the government, super regulated markets, nationalization, high tax rates and political redistribution of wealth.


meanwhile, capital investment and the "free market" is no longer about local business, investment in production and fair trade systems. The vast majority of all investment capital now goes into FIRE - Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Capitalism is primarily a financial shell game in the current world economy. "free trade" as folks think of it may exist on some level but it is a tiny fraction of world sconomic activity."

True. However, is this because of the free actions of people or the government?


"most of the "illegal immigrants" come from countries that have been colonized and thoroughly exploited for their human and material resources. the international commerce laws have been written (by the wealthy) to give capital the right to go anywhere it wants (generally on whatever terms it wants). poor people don't typically have a say in how laws are written (for those citing the constitution study 18th century american history and learn how much resistance there was from tradesman, small landowners, and skilled and unskilled laborers toward the founding fathers -who were mostly bankers and huge landowners- and laws of that time.. in fact many of the more sacred notions of our constitution and legal system were concessions made by the wealthy founders to avert massive class warfare.)

This is a generalization making no specific points while trying to drag you through about 10 different topics. As him to cite his historical source.


if you look at Mexico, US agrobusiness has made small scale mexican farming obsolete. US and Chinese products have made much of Mexican trades and production obsolete. the rural population has been totally displaced economically by foreign (and complicit domestic) influence. the people then are driven by economic realities to do what capitalism by its own laws requires them to do - migrate toward job opportunities, even though they usually dislike the work, long for their families and wish they had a better alternative."

Mexico has one of the most interventionist governments in the world. That is the cause of their problems.


"various analytical stuidies have shown that undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in services. they pay sales taxes, usually get ss taxes taken out of checks (using fake or fraudulent ss #s to gain employment, with no possibility of ever getting those benefits back), etc... and meanwhile try to avoid interaction w govt services and bureaucracy as much as possible to avoid deportation.

American citizens get more services then they pay for as wealthy Americans and businesses are charged much higher tax rates to pay for government programs. I am not anti-immigration but this is a lie. Ask him to cite his source.


my main points are 1: it is paradoxical to be for "free trade" and capitalism and upset about illegal immigration as the mobility of cheap labor is one of the foundations of that economic system.

He is right.


and 2: it is indecent to make people illegal and alien for simply trying to survive economic conditions imposed on them or trying to reunite with family. they're coming here to pay their bills, cause our companies and banks spent the past century making a fortune screwing up their economies."

There isn't much justice in this world and most of this comment is demagoguery. However, government shouldn't determine where free people can and can't go.

[inflamesdjk02]

Here is his last ditch effort ...

"i'll reply on the last point, on wealth and labor. i meant that as a generalization. in reality, scarcity creates wealth as much as production. tobacco farmers used to have slaves burn off parts of the fields when the harvest was good and slaves produced a lot. the fires were terrible hot caustic work and it served to keep prices higher. presently, through overbuilding, environmental destruction and waste we create scarcity and wealth, as well. Through the FIRE economy we create vast electronic wealth that is wasteful, greedy, unstable and sometimes illusory. there's a whole argument that can be made over whether value needs to be exchange value."

[LibertyMage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth


Wealth is an abundance of valuable resources or material possessions.

His whole argument is based on the assigned value vs. exchange value. This is what he claims when he says "scarcity creates wealth". If you read the definition of wealth above, you will see it is the abundance of valuable resources in an economy. While burning off crops may raise prices in a vacuum, it does not increase the abundance of valuable goods available to consumers. It does exactly the opposite.

The belief in this type of action is strong today. A good example is the cash for clunkers. Nobody in their right mind would propose destroying thousands of cars to stimulate the economy as it sucks an abundance of wealth from the economy. The program was a bailout and this argument was used to justify it.

This "assignment of value" argument is Keynesian non-sense and a common pro-government intervention talking point. Keynesian economics is a system of false economic truths that has been institutionalized to justify government power over everything in the economy. The institutionalization of this type of information is how programs that are huge failures continue to thrive.

[andrewh817]

my main points are 1: it is paradoxical to be for "free trade" and capitalism and upset about illegal immigration as the mobility of cheap labor is one of the foundations of that economic system.

and 2: it is indecent to make people illegal and alien for simply trying to survive economic conditions imposed on them or trying to reunite with family. they're coming here to pay their bills, cause our companies and banks spent the past century making a fortune screwing up their economies."

Any thoughts?

Well people only call them "aliens" because the government calls them that. Obviously anyone with a brain knows it's a false distinction and they're using immigrants as scapegoats for their policies.

Since words like "illegal" and "immigrant" are used by the government to create false distinctions between humans, if you're against "illegal immigrants" getting jobs, then fundamentally you're against other people improving their standard of living.