Border fence = useless [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

dannno

01-03-2011, 03:59 PM

Better to just increase penalties on employers of illegals

No way, that will just lead to politically well connected employers getting away with it, plus there is nothing wrong with hiring somebody for a job they are willing to do for the price.. Laws should be reserved for behavior that hurts others. There is no way of knowing if the person who hired the illegal would be willing to hire somebody at a higher price, so there is know way to know if they even gave a job to someone else, maybe it only exists because the illegal alien happens to be there and willing to work.

and end NAFTA. The illegals will leave on their own.

I agree with that, but i think most of the damage NAFTA is doing to Mexico's economy has already been done, they already stole their land.

noxagol

01-03-2011, 04:08 PM

Get rid of the welfare state and most of the complaints are done.

PreDeadMan

01-03-2011, 04:14 PM

build all the walls you want republicans/democrats just don't steal my money to build it fart knockers.

oyarde

01-03-2011, 05:02 PM

Get rid of the welfare state and most of the complaints are done.

I tend to agree .

Brett85

01-03-2011, 05:13 PM

This is a good example of why it would be better to simply put our military along the border.

noxagol

01-03-2011, 05:14 PM

This is a good example of why it would be better to simply put our military along the border.

Yes, because having military patrols would be cheaper.

The best solution is to get rid of the welfare state, the motivation for most to come here.

ClayTrainor

01-03-2011, 05:15 PM

Better to just increase penalties on employers of illegals and end NAFTA. The illegals will leave on their own.

Your posts are beginning to alarm me. You seem to advocate using state enforced violence to solve virtually every complex social problem. :(

Brett85

01-03-2011, 05:21 PM

Your posts are beginning to alarm me. You seem to advocate using state enforced violence to solve virtually every complex social problem. :(

I think she said once that she's a libertarian leaning liberal who supports Ron.

axiomata

01-03-2011, 05:23 PM

Put some grease on them poles!

dannno

01-03-2011, 05:31 PM

Put some grease on them poles!

Ya those chicks should grease themselves up then try it again :D

w2992

01-03-2011, 05:34 PM

military is only good for breaking things and killing. Is that what u want?

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-03-2011, 07:42 PM

This is a good example of why it would be better to simply put our military along the border.

How is that going to stop anyone, or anything? They'll just come here either by boat or by plane or underground like they all ready do. I swear. The amount of people who attack the symptom, vilify the effect, and simply miss the cause altogether is irritating.

Brett85

01-03-2011, 08:19 PM

How is that going to stop anyone, or anything? They'll just come here either by boat or by plane or underground like they all ready do. I swear. The amount of people who attack the symptom, vilify the effect, and simply miss the cause altogether is irritating.

I think that having 100,000 troops along our border would slow illegal immigration significantly. The vast majority of illegal immigrants just walk across the border. I would much rather use our troops to defend our borders than use them to police the world. Isn't that what Ron Paul always says?

AxisMundi

01-03-2011, 08:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjKBjM1ngw

Fences, like locks, only keep honest people out.

AxisMundi

01-03-2011, 08:27 PM

I think that having 100,000 troops along our border would slow illegal immigration significantly. The vast majority of illegal immigrants just walk across the border. I would much rather use our troops to defend our borders than use them to police the world. Isn't that what Ron Paul always says?

While I agree that we have no business policing the world, one would almost have to post soldiers along the borders within sight of each other to be totally effective.

I believe what another member had said earlier would be the most effective and cost less, removing access to what causes people to sneak into the country in the first place.

Jobs. Fine employers and renters who either knowingly hire/rent to illegals or do not do enough to check that their employees/renters are citizens.

"Put the hens in the hen house where the fox can't get 'em, an' the fox stops comin' 'round", as an uncle of mine from TN says.

MRoCkEd

01-03-2011, 08:27 PM

AxisMundi

01-03-2011, 08:31 PM

A lot of people say they have no problem with legal immigration, just illegal immigration. If that's the case, will you agree that the process for coming here legally should be MUCH faster and simpler? In many cases, people only come here illegally because it's impossible to do so otherwise.

Basically, if you are not a criminal and you don't have any communicable diseases, you should just have to fill out some simple paperwork. Otherwise, we can "secure" the border, assuming that anyone trying to come here illegally is not someone we would want here.

Streamlining the Naturalization & Immigration system, and the VISA system, is indeed needed.

However, "just filling out paperwork" sounds like unlimited immigration. Please clarify and expand.

Merely signing in at the border does nothing where back ground checks to ensure incoming migrant workers, or those interested in attaining citizenship, are disease free and not escaping justice in their home countries are concerned.

Zippyjuan

01-03-2011, 08:36 PM

40% of all illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed. Most of all of them come for work and money.

MRoCkEd

01-03-2011, 08:36 PM

Streamlining the Naturalization & Immigration system, and the VISA system, is indeed needed.

However, "just filling out paperwork" sounds like unlimited immigration. Please clarify and expand.

Merely signing in at the border does nothing where back ground checks to ensure incoming migrant workers, or those interested in attaining citizenship, are disease free and not escaping justice in their home countries are concerned.
Well, it should be a little more than simply "signing in" at the border. I mean they should fill out some simple paperwork, wait for it to be processed as they do a background check, and then become notified of their approval or disapproval.

AxisMundi

01-03-2011, 08:55 PM

Well, it should be a little more than simply "signing in" at the border. I mean they should fill out some simple paperwork, wait for it to be processed as they do a background check, and then become notified of their approval or disapproval.

That is the current N&I and VISA systems. :)

Problem is, especially if one is seeking naturalized citizenship, the red tape can have one waiting for five years or more just for an answer.

AxisMundi

01-03-2011, 08:56 PM

40% of all illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed. Most of all of them come for work and money.

Not to be rude, but points?

1. It is up to the legal immigrant to keep their paperwork up to date.

2. Every developed country on the planet controls their immigration, why should the US be the only one who doesn't?

We should not be policing the world, and we should not be inviting the world to live here either.

Brett85

01-03-2011, 08:57 PM

A lot of people say they have no problem with legal immigration, just illegal immigration. If that's the case, will you agree that the process for coming here legally should be MUCH faster and simpler? In many cases, people only come here illegally because it's impossible to do so otherwise.

Basically, if you are not a criminal and you don't have any communicable diseases, you should just have to fill out some simple paperwork. Otherwise, we can "secure" the border, assuming that anyone trying to come here illegally is not someone we would want here.

I don't support changing our current immigration laws. We already have over 1 million LEGAL immigrants come to our country every year, and if you allowed unlimited immigration you would run into problems with over population in certain areas and increased unemployment.

hazek

01-03-2011, 09:09 PM

Get rid of the welfare state and most of the complaints are done.

Bingo.

MRoCkEd

01-03-2011, 09:10 PM

I don't support changing our current immigration laws. We already have over 1 million LEGAL immigrants come to our country every year, and if you allowed unlimited immigration you would run into problems with over population in certain areas and increased unemployment.
I used to agree with you, but as I studied free market economics, I realized that the benefits of immigration far exceed its negatives.

Have you read this study by CATO? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438

It's pretty interesting how they predict the results of various immigration policies. They conclude that cracking down on immigration would reduce the average income of American households, while expanding the free market would increase it.

I don't agree with all of it, but it makes some good points. For instance, bringing mostly unskilled workers into the economy will create new professional and managerial jobs for native-born workers.

Kregisen

01-03-2011, 09:20 PM

Get rid of the welfare state and most of the complaints are done.

What does our welfare state consist of? Just food stamps? Everyone throws that phrase around, but I have a feeling the majority of them don't even know what they're referring to. (not talking about RPF, just in general)

Kregisen

01-03-2011, 09:23 PM

Fine employers and renters who either knowingly hire/rent to illegals or do not do enough to check that their employees/renters are citizens.

We do that already through things like e-verify. Most illegals just have fake SS #'s and ID's....I know because my first job I used to work with plenty of them.

MelissaWV

01-04-2011, 05:54 PM

We do that already through things like e-verify. Most illegals just have fake SS #'s and ID's....I know because my first job I used to work with plenty of them.

Which is why citizenship verification should be done via actual citizenship documents or birth certificates, and periodic audits done privately to ensure the integrity of the collected info. *shrugs* E-Verify is terrible. It's like the No Fly list, and it'll tend to accidentally catch innocents more often than it rightly snares an illegal.

acptulsa

01-04-2011, 06:04 PM

Southron

01-04-2011, 06:32 PM

Heimdallr

01-04-2011, 06:36 PM

THAT'S our border fence? A bunch of poles stuck in the ground? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

oyarde

01-04-2011, 06:37 PM

Which is why citizenship verification should be done via actual citizenship documents or birth certificates, and periodic audits done privately to ensure the integrity of the collected info. *shrugs* E-Verify is terrible. It's like the No Fly list, and it'll tend to accidentally catch innocents more often than it rightly snares an illegal.

Something different about your avatar ...

oyarde

01-04-2011, 06:37 PM

oyarde

01-04-2011, 06:38 PM

THAT'S our border fence? A bunch of poles stuck in the ground? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Yeah , it was only designed to keep vehicles from passing .

Heimdallr

01-04-2011, 06:42 PM

Yeah , it was only designed to keep vehicles from passing .

Ludicrous.

Humanae Libertas

01-04-2011, 06:48 PM

Just wait...the NeoCons have a solution: Electric fence that is 100 feet high, thermal/night vision cameras with mines/explosives, and sharks with laser beams attacked to their freakin' heads!

MelissaWV

01-04-2011, 06:51 PM

Well, this sounds good in theory, but if we put all the armed forces close to the Mexican border we'll have a few problems. Like, for instance, Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Midway, Puerto Rico...

Puerto Rico has defenses. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico also already has a hell of an illegal immigration problem that's helping destroy the island (lots of other factors, too). It's just not Mexicans, so it doesn't get the press.

oyarde

01-04-2011, 06:54 PM

Ludicrous.

Yeah , in a way , probably . I am not sure , but imagine the plan was the border patrol would detect many walking in , and the tank trap is to keep the SUV full of people out that can move quickly and evade .

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 07:31 PM

Who cares who an employer hires? Right of association. What you're advocating is reverse affirmative action.

Down with the welfare state and down with regulations.

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 07:33 PM

Who cares who an employer hires? Right of association. What you're advocating is reverse affirmative action.

Down with the welfare state and down with regulations.

That was a reply for this comment:

Better to just increase penalties on employers of illegals and end NAFTA. The illegals will leave on their own.

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 07:34 PM

This is a good example of why it would be better to simply put our military along the border.

East Berlin much?

I don't get what draws people to militarization.

ClayTrainor

01-04-2011, 07:50 PM

I don't get what draws people to militarization.

Fear, propaganda and a lack of honest research.

oyarde

01-04-2011, 07:54 PM

East Berlin much?

I don't get what draws people to militarization.

Having seen East Berlin , I think the comparison not close ....

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 07:58 PM

What's funny is that Ron Paul only supports putting troops on the border. He's not a fence advocate. Does anyone know how much money a fence would cost?

I really don't see what the big deal would be if we simply withdrew from NAFTA and abolished the welfare state. The only remaining factor I see is nationalism, which is incompatible with libertarianism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiO5YSjsV9w

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 07:59 PM

Having seen East Berlin , I think the comparison not close ....

It's all still authoritarianism.

AxisMundi

01-04-2011, 09:17 PM

I used to agree with you, but as I studied free market economics, I realized that the benefits of immigration far exceed its negatives.

Have you read this study by CATO? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10438

It's pretty interesting how they predict the results of various immigration policies. They conclude that cracking down on immigration would reduce the average income of American households, while expanding the free market would increase it.

I don't agree with all of it, but it makes some good points. For instance, bringing mostly unskilled workers into the economy will create new professional and managerial jobs for native-born workers.

CATO is hardly a credible source, I'm afraid, their example you use last above a case in point.

Professional and managerial jobs simply so not provide the sheer numbers needed to keep America's working class working.

Our "Golden Age" saw American citizens working in factories and on farms, making, and spending, plenty of cash.

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 09:31 PM

CATO is hardly a credible source, I'm afraid, their example you use last above a case in point.

Professional and managerial jobs simply so not provide the sheer numbers needed to keep America's working class working.

Our "Golden Age" saw American citizens working in factories and on farms, making, and spending, plenty of cash.

It's not just Cato. Alot of Austrian schoolers also believe in open immigration.

Freedom of association and freedom of movement are also things to consider.

Fredom101

01-04-2011, 09:42 PM

Better to just increase penalties on employers of illegals and end NAFTA. The illegals will leave on their own.

What? Why not just strike the root and end the welfare/warfare states...i.e. the state itself?
Anything else is just band-aids that will never work.

AxisMundi

01-04-2011, 09:58 PM

It's not just Cato. Alot of Austrian schoolers also believe in open immigration.

Freedom of association and freedom of movement are also things to consider.

Those freedoms are reserved for American citizens, not foreign nationals.

And the "School of Austria" isn't exactly perfect.

ClayTrainor

01-04-2011, 09:59 PM

Those freedoms are reserved for American citizens, not foreign nationals.

Somebodies struggling to accept the concept of individual liberty.

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 10:03 PM

Those freedoms are reserved for American citizens, not foreign nationals.

Collectivist much?

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 10:06 PM

"America this foreigners that"

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2009/sieg-heil-pledge.jpg

Vessol

01-04-2011, 10:16 PM

Just build it taller. Add some electric wires and dogs and stuff.

It has to work! The government HAS to keep me safe from illegal immigrants taking my job!

AFPVet

01-04-2011, 10:18 PM

This is a good example of why it would be better to simply put our military along the border.

Exactly! The only problem with this is that it is logical... and Washington doesn't like logic lol.

Vessol

01-04-2011, 10:23 PM

Exactly! The only problem with this is that it is logical... and Washington doesn't like logic lol.

How is it logical?

There's nearly 2,000 miles there to guard. Do you propose stationing hundreds of thousands of soldiers there? What are they going to do with the immigrants? Shoot them? Detain them? That would cost even more resources and man power.

Do you have any idea how much this would cost? Does the cost outweigh the benefits of "savin our derbs!"

Do you know how dangerous standing armies are?

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson was so afraid of them.

"How happy that our army had been recently disbanded [before the Presidential crisis of 1801]! What might have happened otherwise seems rather a subject of reflection than explanation."

~ Thomas Jefferson writing to Nathaniel Miles, March 1801

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/rossi8.html

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 10:30 PM

Exactly! The only problem with this is that it is logical... and Washington doesn't like logic lol.

No, logic would be abolishing the welfare state. I don't want my tax dollars fanning the flames of militarism, nor should the government FORCE me to pay more for my imported Japan cds/dvds to pay for this or anything else. Actually, why should I be forced by the state to pay more for anything imported? If I buy herbs imported from India the price should be determined by those who grow them and those who ship them, not dirty politicians or crazy nationalists.

Freedom of association, freedom of trade, FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM.

Vessol

01-04-2011, 10:32 PM

Many here only want certain freedoms for a certain group of people who had the happenstance to have their parents reproduce and give birth to them in a certain nation.

HazyHusky420

01-04-2011, 10:33 PM

Vessol

01-04-2011, 10:37 PM

I can understand the protectionists desires, however they are targeting the wrong things. They should be targeting minimum wage laws and laws that pushed the manufacturers away from America because it was not profitable to manufacture in the United States. We should make it profitable to manufacture in the United States again, not just be lazy and make tariffs. Tariffs will only raise the prices of goods for consumers. The factories that took the jobs to China won't suffer, they'll just raise their prices. There's no other place that can satisfy the demand, so consumers will just have to accept the rising prices.

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-04-2011, 11:59 PM

http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/if-trade-wars-were-like-real-wars.html

Don is great. I do not understand the protectionistas one bit.

If governments fought real wars like they fight trade wars, here’s how the transcript of the communiqués between the leaders of two warring nations would read:

Leader of Absurditopia (A): I say, leader of Stupidia – we demand that you stop occupying that contested strip of land. If you refuse, we’ll have no choice but to shoot our own citizens.

Leader of Stupidia (S): You don’t scare us! That land is ours. And if you do kill some of your own people, make no mistake that we will immediately – and just as cruelly – commence to killing our own people. Courage is our national motto!

(A): Ha! You’re bluffing. But I’m not. I’ve just courageously ordered my troops to mow down in cold blood ten percent of my fellow countrymen. Take that!

(S): How dare you attack you like that! You leave us no choice but to attack us. I am ordering the Stupidian army to slaughter 15 percent of innocent Stupidians here in Stupidia. How do you like them apples?!

(A): You are cruel and inhuman to damage us by killing your people. I hereby instruct all of my fellow Absurditopians to commit suicide! Only then will you nasty Stupidians get your proper comeuppance and we Absurditopians the justice that we are due!

(S): You can’t beat us, you Absurditopian you! Listen up. I’m ordering all of my fellow citizens – Stupidians all! – to commit suicide. We’ll see who emerges victorious!
….
Then a long, long silence.

AxisMundi

01-05-2011, 08:38 PM

Somebodies struggling to accept the concept of individual liberty.

Someone is struggling with the concept of Constitutional Rights being reserved for citizens of the United States.

oyarde

01-05-2011, 08:45 PM

AxisMundi

01-05-2011, 08:46 PM

Many here only want certain freedoms for a certain group of people who had the happenstance to have their parents reproduce and give birth to them in a certain nation.

Yup.

Been that way for much of the 100,000 year plus history of mankind.

AxisMundi

01-05-2011, 08:56 PM

Speaking of tariffs, don't protectionists realize that by raising tariffs few people would want to do business with Americans? Which means little is imported into America, then what jappens next? The tax payer gets screwed.

Boy isn't nationalism great?

What, exactly, do we NEED imported into the country that we ourselves cannot produce? Ignoring for a moment that we have, arguably, the largest market in the world for consumer goods.

We did quite well before tariffs were removed and so-called "free markets" opened. Everyone liked us.

Captain Shays

01-05-2011, 09:26 PM

grease the poles

ClayTrainor

01-05-2011, 09:46 PM

Someone is struggling with the concept of Constitutional Rights being reserved for citizens of the United States.

Humans are entitled to Liberty, not just Americans.

ClayTrainor

01-05-2011, 09:47 PM

We did quite well before tariffs were removed and so-called "free markets" opened. Everyone liked us.

Free markets are the problem, Taxation and Regulation is the answer!!! Such a compelling premise, lol.

agitator

01-05-2011, 09:49 PM

Someone is struggling with the concept of Constitutional Rights being reserved for citizens of the United States.

What are "Constitutional Rights?"

HazyHusky420

01-05-2011, 10:02 PM

Yup.

Been that way for much of the 100,000 year plus history of mankind.

Along with war and tyranny! Boy isn't the past great? The Amish are so awesome!

HazyHusky420

01-05-2011, 10:03 PM

What are "Constitutional Rights?"

Oh boy, here we go with the whole "where do rights come from" debate.

Sorry but rights are rights. Doesn't matter where they come from.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 03:30 AM

Humans are entitled to Liberty, not just Americans.

I certainly agree.

However, "Liberty" doesn't mean one can just waltz into another country.

You advocate anarchy, not liberty.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 03:40 AM

Along with war and tyranny! Boy isn't the past great? The Amish are so awesome!

Point?

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 03:40 AM

Free markets are the problem, Taxation and Regulation is the answer!!! Such a compelling premise, lol.

How about we return to what worked best?

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 04:16 AM

I certainly agree.

Doesn't seem like it.

However, "Liberty" doesn't mean one can just waltz into another country.

If they were invited by a private property owner, whynot? If i invite someone over to my house, it's none of your business, no matter where they're from.

Liberty isn't about countries. "Liberty" is freedom, and that can only exist is the absence of coercion and force.

You advocate anarchy, not liberty.

I advocate Free-markets, Private property rights and the Non-Aggression principle.

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 04:22 AM

How about we return to what worked best?

Free-markets? I agree :)

BamaAla

01-06-2011, 04:57 AM

Until the welfare state is curbed, immigration will not be fixed. That's just the bottom line.

Southron

01-06-2011, 08:51 AM

Humans are entitled to Liberty, not just Americans.

The majority of humans don't want liberty. And I'd rather that majority not reside in these united States.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 11:27 AM

Doesn't seem like it.

If they were invited by a private property owner, whynot? If i invite someone over to my house, it's none of your business, no matter where they're from.

Liberty isn't about countries. "Liberty" is freedom, and that can only exist is the absence of coercion and force.

I advocate Free-markets, Private property rights and the Non-Aggression principle.

Firstly, I meant what I said. I agree about Liberty. We do not agree on what Liberty means.

Secondly, to enter onto said private property, illegals would have to cross not only the border, but other private properties AND government property as well. Our property rights are granted, indirectly, by the Constitution, the same document which sets up immigration standards, and the same document that applies only to US citizens as well.

Lastly, private property rights are granted through the government. I also agree with a non-aggressive principle, if you are speaking in terms of international relations.

However, I have a feeling we also disagree with what constitutes a Free market.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 11:38 AM

Free-markets? I agree :)

Indeed.

A well regulated and healthy Free Market void of international "free" trade.

An unregulated "free" market with (or without) unlimited international trade is not a Free Market, it is a Free For All Market. And we can certainly see what has resulted from that.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 11:39 AM

Until the welfare state is curbed, immigration will not be fixed. That's just the bottom line.

A mere distraction generated by neocon talking heads.

BamaAla

01-06-2011, 06:40 PM

A mere distraction generated by neocon talking heads.

You think so? How many people do you employ?

I have a contracts with two poultry companies to gather and load the birds and have them shipped live-haul to the processing plant. In this line of work, I employ 32 people; I know a little bit about the labor market. Not from reading theories in a book, but from actually doing it. I can tell you, unequivocally, that my single biggest competitor for workers is the state welfare rolls. The work we do is hard, unskilled labor and it's difficult to get people to do the job when they can get on government programs and make comparable money doing nothing.

You can sit behind your computer screen and claim that I'm regurgitating neo-con talking points all you want, but that's simply not the case.

HazyHusky420

01-06-2011, 07:22 PM

Indeed.

A well regulated and healthy Free Market void of international "free" trade.

An unregulated "free" market with (or without) unlimited international trade is not a Free Market, it is a Free For All Market. And we can certainly see what has resulted from that.

Uhhhh how is an unregulated market not a free market? You sound like a central planner.

HazyHusky420

01-06-2011, 07:25 PM

A mere distraction generated by neocon talking heads.

That makes no sense. Neocons are pro-welfare state.

Please tell me. Minus any of your nationalist "Americans this foreigners that" feelings, what would the problem be with immigration be if we got rid of the NAFTA and the welfare state? I really want to know.

HazyHusky420

01-06-2011, 07:30 PM

Lastly, private property rights are granted through the government.

rights come from government? o_0

oyarde

01-06-2011, 07:33 PM

That makes no sense. Neocons are pro-welfare state.

Please tell me. Minus any of your nationalist "Americans this foreigners that" feelings, what would the problem be with immigration be if we got rid of the NAFTA and the welfare state? I really want to know.

I think we could experiment with many things of that nature by getting rid of welfare and ending the war on drugs etc

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 08:53 PM

rights come from government? o_0

Yes. Where did you think rights come from? The "Rights Fairy" leaves them under your pillow?

oyarde

01-06-2011, 08:55 PM

Yes. Where did you think rights come from? The "Rights Fairy" leaves them under your pillow?

I want to see the rights Fairy . I have a list : )

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 08:55 PM

That makes no sense. Neocons are pro-welfare state.

Please tell me. Minus any of your nationalist "Americans this foreigners that" feelings, what would the problem be with immigration be if we got rid of the NAFTA and the welfare state? I really want to know.

1. Your "welfare state" is indeed a neocon talking point. It's empty rhetoric uttered when the leaders need to rally the troops.

2. I do not support NAFTA or free trade with China and other countries, and they also have nothing to do with this debate.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 08:56 PM

I want to see the rights Fairy . I have a list : )

Leave adult teeth under your pillow, and maybe you'll get lucky. ;)

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 08:58 PM

A well regulated and healthy Free Market void of international "free" trade.

Lmao... Free markets without free trade? Explain that concept to me please...

An unregulated "free" market with (or without) unlimited international trade is not a Free Market, it is a Free For All Market.

A free-market is not an "unregulated" market.... A free-market implies that fraud, coercion and the initiation of force are what's regulated against. A market is not "free" where these things are present.

And we can certainly see what has resulted from that.

LMAO, right. Because all of the problems in the world today are from a lack of state intervention into the economy.

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 08:58 PM

Yes. Where did you think rights come from? The "Rights Fairy" leaves them under your pillow?

Rights come from our heads. They are ideas.

puppetmaster

01-06-2011, 09:00 PM

Ya those chicks should grease themselves up then try it again :D

can't believe that I had to read to the second page before someone mentioned the chicks!

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 09:04 PM

You think so? How many people do you employ?

I have a contracts with two poultry companies to gather and load the birds and have them shipped live-haul to the processing plant. In this line of work, I employ 32 people; I know a little bit about the labor market. Not from reading theories in a book, but from actually doing it. I can tell you, unequivocally, that my single biggest competitor for workers is the state welfare rolls. The work we do is hard, unskilled labor and it's difficult to get people to do the job when they can get on government programs and make comparable money doing nothing.

You can sit behind your computer screen and claim that I'm regurgitating neo-con talking points all you want, but that's simply not the case.

If I wasn't driving commercially I was working in the construction industry, many times as a supervisor. I also owned my own destruction/site clearing business as a younger man, so I do in fact have experience with work-for-welfare people. They do indeed tend to be shiftless, lazy types who must be watched constantly.

However, this is a SYMPTOM, not the disease.

One of the major changes I advocate is removing life long welfare. It was intended as a temporary device to help get people and families back on their feet, not the gravy train for free loaders it has turned into.

However, my favorite analogy applies. "You don't fix a leaky roof by burning the house down".

So yes, you are indeed regurgitating empty neocon talking points, key words meant to get people's blood boiling and meant to rally the troops as empty talking suits hold up welfare poster children and stir up the sheeple into a frenzied partisan mob.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 09:12 PM

Lmao... Free markets without free trade? Explain that concept to me please...

A free-market is not an "unregulated" market.... A free-market implies that fraud, coercion and force are what's regulated against. A market is not "free" where these things are present.

LMAO, right. Because all of the problems in the world today are from a lack of state intervention into the economy.

Not old enough to remember the USSR I take it?

1. "Free" Trade is not free, it costs American's jobs as unregulated corporate greed sends our jobs overseas where even the cost of transporting consumer goods isn't enough to cut into profits when people in foreign countries are willing to work long hours for a few dollars a day, if that. Actual and historic Free Trade means companies are free to trade with whatever country they wish in whatever consumer goods they wish while the g'ment keeps tabs on trade deficits and adjusts accordingly.

2. Yes, that is my point. However,t he Republican idea of Free Market is an unregulated free market in which those things you listed become prevalent. Corporate greed is a desirable thing. It provides a company with profits with which to hire more people, pay decent wages, pay their vendors thus expanding the effect of said profits, etc. Unregulated corporate greed has helped lead to today's economic climate.

3. All? No. A significant potion IS the result of deregulation polices and ideas of "free trade' of the GOP in general.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 09:14 PM

Rights come from our heads. They are ideas.

Rights are listed in the Constitution and law Codes. These rights are enforced by the government.

Example?

Without g'ment, property rights would not exist.

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-06-2011, 09:19 PM

Rights are listed in the Constitution and law Codes. These rights are enforced by the government.

Example?

Without g'ment, property rights would not exist.

So tell me how property rights were maintained and enforced in the non-existent Government spectrum called the West for much of the 1800s? Don't answer that is rhetorical, here is your real world historical example.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 09:24 PM

1. "Free" Trade is not free, it costs American's jobs as unregulated corporate greed sends our jobs overseas where even the cost of transporting consumer goods isn't enough to cut into profits when people in foreign countries are willing to work long hours for a few dollars a day, if that. Actual and historic Free Trade means companies are free to trade with whatever country they wish in whatever consumer goods they wish while the g'ment keeps tabs on trade deficits and adjusts accordingly.

I'm gonna let RP take this one...

"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction." - Ron Paul

2. Yes, that is my point. However,t he Republican idea of Free Market is an unregulated free market in which those things you listed become prevalent.

Most republicans don't understand dick about economics. Almost as bad as democrats.

Corporate greed is a desirable thing.

No shit, it's an extension of state power... Ask yourself... Why do the most powerful corporate interests always seem to have a strong relationship with the state? Why do so many corporations dump billions into lobbying states to do things and pass regulations? Why do so many massive corporate interests dump billions into political campaigns?

The legal concepts of a corporation and corporate law are state enforced, in order to abdicate responsibility away from the individuals that own the corporation. It's really nothing more than a state enforced piece of paper. Corporatism is a bi-product of statism.

It provides a company with profits with which to hire more people, pay decent wages, pay their vendors thus expanding the effect of said profits, etc. Unregulated corporate greed has helped lead to today's economic climate.

So let's give an organization the power to extort from everyone, and tell them what to do? No need to worry about bad people abusing that kind of power right?

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 09:33 PM

So tell me how property rights were maintained and enforced in the non-existent Government spectrum called the West for much of the 1800s? Don't answer that is rhetorical, here is your real world historical example.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Even your source states that "property rights were protected".

CCTelander

01-06-2011, 09:34 PM

So tell me how property rights were maintained and enforced in the non-existent Government spectrum called the West for much of the 1800s? Don't answer that is rhetorical, here is your real world historical example.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

There you go again trying to confuse us with facts!

Austrian Econ Disciple

01-06-2011, 09:34 PM

Even your source states that "property rights were protected".

http://meljeanbrook.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/picard-facepalm2.jpg

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 09:37 PM

Even your source states that "property rights were protected".

LMFAO... because, you know... We're arguing against property rights? :confused::confused:

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 09:41 PM

I'm gonna let RP take this one...

"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction." - Ron Paul

Most republicans don't understand dick about economics. Almost as bad as democrats.

No shit, it's an extension of state power... Ask yourself... Why do the most powerful corporate interests always seem to have a strong relationship with the state? Why do so many corporations dump billions into lobbying states to do things and pass regulations? Why do so many massive corporate interests dump billions into political campaigns?

The legal concepts of a corporation and corporate law are state enforced, in order to abdicate responsibility away from the individuals that own the corporation. It's really nothing more than a state enforced piece of paper. Corporatism is a bi-product of statism.

So let's give an organization the power to extort from everyone, and tell them what to do? No need to worry about bad people abusing that kind of power right?

Firstly, "free trade" has worked wonders, hasn't it.

Secondly, I agree, neither side has a handle on economics. However, not only has your apparent jib fallen far short as I am a registered Independent and not a Democrat, the Republican ideals of economics, ie free trade and supply-side (trickle down) economics have PROVEN themselves a Super Deluxe Epic Fail. Just look around you.

Thirdly, corporate greed drives small businesses as well as Big Corp. Also, lobby groups and special interests groups aren't something new, nor limited to Big Corp. From the Danbury Association to the Knights of Columbus who changed our very Pledge and Motto to handicap advocacy groups to big Quitters (smoking cessation corporations), lobbyists have been present since day one. It is something we must deal with. They aren't going anywhere any time soon, and to be frank, are the least of our worries at this present time.

Lastly, any other straw men you'd like to introduce? If you are not interested in debate, let me know.

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 09:46 PM

Firstly, "free trade" has worked wonders, hasn't it.

Do you believe that NAFTA is free trade?

Secondly, I agree, neither side has a handle on economics. However, not only has your apparent jib fallen far short as I am a registered Independent and not a Democrat, the Republican ideals of economics, ie free trade and supply-side (trickle down) economics have PROVEN themselves a Super Deluxe Epic Fail. Just look around you.

There was no jib, I was being serious. Republicans tend to grasp economics slightly more than democrats, sort of like how democrats grasp anti-war sentiment slightly more than republicans. Both are just lying snakes and hypocrites though.

Thirdly, corporate greed drives small businesses as well as Big Corp. Also, lobby groups and special interests groups aren't something new, nor limited to Big Corp. From the Danbury Association to the Knights of Columbus who changed our very Pledge and Motto to handicap advocacy groups to big Quitters (smoking cessation corporations), lobbyists have been present since day one. It is something we must deal with. They aren't going anywhere any time soon, and to be frank, are the least of our worries at this present time.

That's not an answer to my questions, not even close. You're just saying it exists, and we must deal with it. You don't explain why it exists.

Allow me to ask again...

Why do the most powerful corporate interests always seem to have a strong relationship with the state? Why do so many corporations dump billions into lobbying states to do things and pass regulations? Why do so many massive corporate interests dump billions into political campaigns?

Lastly, any other straw men you'd like to introduce? If you are not interested in debate, let me know.

LMAO... where is the straw man?

It's so obvious that you're a troll.

AxisMundi

01-06-2011, 09:52 PM

Do you believe that NAFTA is free trade?

There was no jib, I was being serious. Republicans tend to grasp economics slightly more than democrats, sort of like how democrats grasp anti-war sentiment slightly more than republicans. Both are just lying snakes and hypocrites though.

That's not an answer to my questions, not even close. You're just saying it exists, and we must deal with it. You don't explain why it exists.

Allow me to ask again...

LMAO... where is the straw man?

It's so obvious that you're a troll.

1. The North American Free Trade Agreement?
2. Republicans of today have little grasp on economics, otherwise they would've seen that trickle down is as doomed to fail as the Keynesian economics it was derived from.
3. I answered your question. If you don't like the answer, nothing I can do about it.
4. So you're not interested in debate. Thank you.

ClayTrainor

01-06-2011, 10:05 PM

1. The North American Free Trade Agreement?

Ah.. it's all so clear now... The government does your thinking for you! Do you also believe the patriot act is patriotic? Do you also believe that "operation iraqi freedom" was about Freeing Iraq? C'mon man... You have a brain for a reason, use it.

Here's Ron Paul dropping some Econ 101 on your ass...

"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. " - Ron Paul

2. Republicans of today have little grasp on economics, otherwise they would've seen that trickle down is as doomed to fail as the Keynesian economics it was derived from.

I find that people who consistently use the term "trickle down economics" to criticize cutting taxes, to be consistently economically illiterate. Taxation is also a trickle down theory. You want the state to take money, in the hopes that it will "trickle down" from the state to whoever needs it.

3. I answered your question. If you don't like the answer, nothing I can do about it.

You ranted an opinion and completely ignored the questions, and the point of the questions.

4. So you're not interested in debate. Thank you.

There was no debate here. Just dealing with a troll. ;)

AxisMundi

01-07-2011, 03:32 AM

Ah.. it's all so clear now... The government does your thinking for you! Do you also believe the patriot act is patriotic? Do you also believe that "operation iraqi freedom" was about Freeing Iraq? C'mon man... You have a brain for a reason, use it.

Here's Ron Paul dropping some Econ 101 on your ass...

"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. " - Ron Paul

I find that people who consistently use the term "trickle down economics" to criticize cutting taxes, to be consistently economically illiterate. Taxation is also a trickle down theory. You want the state to take money, in the hopes that it will "trickle down" from the state to whoever needs it.

You ranted an opinion and completely ignored the questions, and the point of the questions.

There was no debate here. Just dealing with a troll. ;)

1. Are ad hominems and other fallacies all you can bring to the table?

2. How about using common definitions instead of your own personal lexicon, it would make debate much easier.

3. Again, you didn't like the answers. Deal with it.

4. Troll = Someone who doesn't agree with you 100%.

HazyHusky420

01-07-2011, 08:28 PM

Not old enough to remember the USSR I take it?

1. "Free" Trade is not free, it costs American's jobs as unregulated corporate greed sends our jobs overseas where even the cost of transporting consumer goods isn't enough to cut into profits when people in foreign countries are willing to work long hours for a few dollars a day, if that. Actual and historic Free Trade means companies are free to trade with whatever country they wish in whatever consumer goods they wish while the g'ment keeps tabs on trade deficits and adjusts accordingly.

2. Yes, that is my point. However,t he Republican idea of Free Market is an unregulated free market in which those things you listed become prevalent. Corporate greed is a desirable thing. It provides a company with profits with which to hire more people, pay decent wages, pay their vendors thus expanding the effect of said profits, etc. Unregulated corporate greed has helped lead to today's economic climate.

3. All? No. A significant potion IS the result of deregulation polices and ideas of "free trade' of the GOP in general.

1. Corporations wouldn't exist without government.

2. NAFTA is managed trade in favor of fortune 500 corporations. It does not represent spontaneous free enterprise.

3. What's with you and "Americans"? How about individuals? That's the libertarian way of saying it.

HazyHusky420

01-07-2011, 08:30 PM

1. Your "welfare state" is indeed a neocon talking point. It's empty rhetoric uttered when the leaders need to rally the troops.

You don't know what you're talking about. Neocons are pro-welfare state. "Welfare state" has always been a libertarian "talking point", especially among anarchists who are the opposite of neocon fascists.

HazyHusky420

01-07-2011, 08:31 PM

AxisMundi, are you a union member? You sound like one.

ClayTrainor

01-07-2011, 09:39 PM

1. Are ad hominems and other fallacies all you can bring to the table?

Is that all i've done? You said it, so it must be true. :D

2. How about using common definitions instead of your own personal lexicon, it would make debate much easier.

It appears that you simply let the government define your terms for you...

Does that mean that NAFTA represents free trade?

1. The North American Free Trade Agreement?

3. Again, you didn't like the answers. Deal with it.

You technically answered, yes, but the answers did not address the questions nor did they address the point of the questions. Your answer may well have been "Red and Blue"... that would be an answer too, and it would be about as relevant, and I would've learned about just as much in regards to what i was asking about.

4. Troll = Someone who doesn't agree with you 100%.

Absolutely not. Plenty of people here who I form disagreements with, without calling them out as a troll. I have read a lot of your posts on this board, and you get in a lot of debates. Not once have I seen you argue to limit the functions of the state. It appears that you are here to simply stir the pot by "debating" your statist positions.

Maybe I'm wrong, And I welcome you to demonstrate me as such, but my hunch is that you are not here to learn or participate in activism. You seem to be here to stir shit up.