Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The First Amendment says nothing about your getting paid for saying anything. It just says you can say it. I don't believe that if a corporation pulls all the money out of you or a network pulls their money away or you get fired, you're being censored.”     Penn Jillette

June 14, 2010

Comment Of The Day

by Brad Warbiany

This is actually a comment at Hit & Run, but I hadn’t seen this juxtaposition before.

The other thing I always find hilarious is how so many anti-immigration Republicans are so anti-union, when they use the same arguments against immigrants that unions use against non-union workers.

In both cases, the impetus is the same: “I’ve already got mine, and everyone else can go screw.”

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/06/14/comment-of-the-day-5/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

6 Comments

  1. Like almost all statists, they are in it for selfish reasons.

    Comment by inDglass — June 14, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
  2. If you were so anti-statist, then you would be raising just as much, and more hell about the welfare/warfare–>GDP state as you would about your stance on immigration. One problem solved will solve the other.

    Comment by Procopius — June 14, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
  3. Procopius,

    I’m confused about your point.

    Are you suggesting that I [and to a larger extent, my fellow contributors] haven’t spent enough time railing against the welfare state and an interventionist foreign policy?

    And this is from what, barely over a month of reading the site? Over which time the stories dominating the political news have been the BP spill, AZ immigration law, DADT and a couple of political primaries?

    During which time I attacked tax levels here, cheered for free trade here, blasted a supporter of the welfare state here, called out the healthcare supporters for [IMHO deliberately] building a plan that will likely force people into the exchanges here, and suggested they gamed the CBO system to get that plan through Congress here.

    I will admit that I haven’t spent much time on foreign affairs over that month, but then there haven’t been brightly-burning fires on that front with the exception of the Israeli blockade, which isn’t really relevant to your point. But if you want to know my thoughts on an interventionist foreign policy, you can find them here.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 14, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
  4. I neither assert nor imply that the contributors don’t spent enough time talking about the welfare/warfare –>GDP state. What I’m bringing up here is that I’ve yet to see a contributor connect the welfare state to incentivising the immigration. This is, in my opinion, the primary object that brings a single-minded immigration population. The single-mind of that segment of the population is fast-track assistance in living expenses for children and rent.

    There is no doubt this population works hard and lives poorly, yet this is not a moral justification to allow the style of immigration we have at hand. I argue that there is also no doubt that this population is in fact degrading the standard of living of legal status communities, via the drain on local and state resources as well as societal conflict and taxation allocation resentment.

    I’m aware of the stance of the contributor element on this issue, and I’m sure that just the few stances I’ve mentioned above invoke a sort of “how dare you, you backwoods racist so-and-so.” I just say that I think the libertarianism stance regarding immigration is taken (on purpose? idk) in a complete vacuum that disregards its connection to taxation and corporatist labor cost goals. I have always found this to be pretty confusing.

    And even if you were to magically take away the Federal level welfare/warfare–> GDP state, you still have the cold reality of community resource drain in regards to local and state public services that cannot and will not be serviced in proportion to the low wage immigration population that is added.

    Finally I definitely do not cheer for free trade as it’s defined in the post-industrialized era. This is in the sense of trade agreements a la NAFTA,GATT and the like. My stance is that there is nothing free trade about this, and actually these agreements are far and away more concerned with uprooting and lowering the wage of domestic labor (in every signatory country) than the issue of actual international trade. This “free trade” anomaly is the essence of corporatism in that it strives to treat labor costs as a zero-sum game for all worlds populations.

    Comment by Procopius — June 14, 2010 @ 2:20 pm
  5. Oh btw if you’ve heard of FreeTalk Live, whose hosts Ian and Mark are running the New Hampshire Free State Project, they’ve talked about how their particular New England libertarianism was heavily influenced by neo-Quakers who advocate unfettered immigration regardless of anything. No this has no bearing on anything here, I just thought that was interesting.

    Comment by Procopius — June 14, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
  6. In the book Race & Liberty by the Independent Institute, it’s revealed that alot of unionists were responsible for nativist legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    Comment by Michael O. Powell — June 14, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML