Shootout On The Southwest Freeway

[TheNiche]

Would libertarian work?

Not to speak for Red, but we'll probably agree that Libertarians take laissez-faire as a dogmatic religion. They are as near to true anarchism as is acceptable in the mainstream political realm. I dated one once, and it was scary how deep she and especially her friends were in this stuff.

Having said that, I do wish that they'd become a more viable third party, if only to add some balance to what we've already got.

[RedScare]

Would libertarian work?

Also, would you even be offended if somebody called you an asshole?

To be honest, no, being called an asshole doesn't offend me. It usually signifies I won the debate.

I agree with both of Niche's posts. Libertarians tend to go overboard by taking the 'less government' thought to extreme lengths. While I have read many rational Libertarians who concede that some government control is necessary, I seldom see them running for office. The rational Libertarians probably are disaffected 'Barry Goldwater Republicans', as I used to consider myself. I seldom respond to people calling me a Liberal or a Democrat anymore, but not because I consider myself one. I find it more curious that the terminology has been so distorted. Republican and Conservative are not the same thing. Today's Republican Party is socially conservative, but not much else. Even more strange is the faction of the Democratic Party that has attracted some of the disaffected Republicans like myself. There are really two distinct groups within each party, trying to use the two party system to effect change. There are social conservatives and fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party, and social/fiscal moderates and liberals within the Democratic Party. Opponents only cite the extreme faction within each party when demoniazing them...social conservatives and liberals. Since I belong to neither, I am stuck in limbo without an allegiance to either party.

Replying again to Niche's post, I would like to see BOTH the Libertarians and Green Party become viable. It would allow more separation of these 4 groups, and frankly, force them to rely on their own ideologies, as opposed to dragging others that disagree with that stance to agree just for the sake of keeping the party in power.

[H-Town Man]

To be honest, no, being called an asshole doesn't offend me. It usually signifies I won the debate.

Or that you were carrying on the debate at a level to which the other person did not wish to descend.

I see what you mean about the social/ethical variable vs. the fiscal variable in government involvement, and it is a shame that the two party system typically does not let us choose between both variables.

[TheNiche]

Replying again to Niche's post, I would like to see BOTH the Libertarians and Green Party become viable. It would allow more separation of these 4 groups, and frankly, force them to rely on their own ideologies, as opposed to dragging others that disagree with that stance to agree just for the sake of keeping the party in power.

This reminds me, we'd need to amend the constitution. Otherwise, we run the risk of having results like with Rick Perry's victory on a consistent basis, but on a national level with political positions that actually matter. Systems involving runoffs or ranking by preference would, I think, be optimal.

[mumbles]

I heard on the news that these fights between smugglers are common in Arizona but not in Houston so we shouldn't really worry about it. How incredibly stupid is that?

[cottonmather0]

Red, I agree with you about never being able to control human nature - I would probably consider myself slightly less libertarian than you but not by much. I was an economics major in college and it made me an eager worshipper at the church of the Invisible Hand and distrustful of most of the things said by politicians.

But I disagree with you on the immigration issue. First, I do agree that there are poor people from Latin America who need work and there are employers in American who need to keep costs down, and those parties indeed need to be brought together.

However, there are enormous externalities associated with mostly unlimited system we have now - strain on our public services (schools, health care, roads), crime, and concerns about housing stock and public health (cramming 3 families into a 1500 sqft house, for instance) - and the federal government has a duty to mitigate those externalities by defining the conditions in which immigration should be allowed. That's the whole point of the distincition between legal and illegal immigration and it's purposely disingenuous for advocates of the illegals to dumb-down the debate by blurring that distinction and referring only to "immigrants' rights."

I guess what I am saying is that I agree that another law and another ID card isn't going to make a difference. But what I think will indeed make a difference is a wall. Sure, people are going to still find ways to get in, but it will make it impossible for the vast majority to cross the border. The whole reason we don't have as big of a problem with illegal immigrants from Africa or China or Russia or wherever else outside of Mexico and Central America is because there are oceans in between us and them and we (and Canada) can control the limited points of entry off of those oceans. I'm not denying that there are no illegal immigrants in this country from those places, because there are, but there are many many fewer of these others than there are from Mexico and Central America because it's simply harder for them to get here and if they do it's easier for us to catch them coming in. What a wall would do is make it harder for the Mexicans and Central Americans to get here as well and I don't understand how any rational person who claims to be concerned about the problem of illegal immigration can deny that a wall wouldn't work. (Actually, it makes perfect sense when the Democrat Party opposes the wall, but I'll ignore that for now)

I'm not saying that a wall would magically solve all of these problems, but it would slow the crush to a trickle and it would enable the government a chance to catch its breath and get control of the problem and manage the externalities. If employers are short on labor and there are people from outside of the country willing to do the job for cheap, then by all means they should be matched up. But they should be matched up in such a way that is respectful of the true cost of employing these people and not in a way that costs the employer a few bucks in cash and our society an equal or larger amount in "invisible" costs and you can't do that if there is an unlimited supply of illegal immigrants willing to work surreptitiously.

Speaking of Libertarians, Neil Boortz probably has one of the best analogies on this matter: you wouldn't repair a flooded basement without cutting off the flow of water from the broken pipe, so why do we think we can "fix" the illegal immigration problem without first cutting off the flow of illegals?

Anyway, that's what I think.

[ricco67]

However, there are enormous externalities associated with mostly unlimited system we have now - strain on our public services (schools, health care, roads), crime, and concerns about housing stock and public health (cramming 3 families into a 1500 sqft house, for instance)...

I was going along with you until you mentioned the "cramming" of families in a single home. It's just not an "illegal" thing, but it's done in some of the poorer neighborhoods and "legal" immigrants as a way to be able to save for housing for relatives. Having had a few relatives in the past do this, it was not considered unusual, but a bit confined when funds are at a straining point, or they are trying to save money for a larger goal (buying a home or reliable transportation)

I guess what I am saying is that I agree that another law and another ID card isn't going to make a difference. But what I think will indeed make a difference is a wall. Sure, people are going to still find ways to get in, but it will make it impossible for the vast majority to cross the border. The whole reason we don't have as big of a problem with illegal immigrants from Africa or China or Russia or wherever else outside of Mexico and Central America is because there are oceans in between us and them and we (and Canada) can control the limited points of entry off of those oceans. I'm not denying that there are no illegal immigrants in this country from those places, because there are, but there are many many fewer of these others than there are from Mexico and Central America because it's simply harder for them to get here and if they do it's easier for us to catch them coming in. What a wall would do is make it harder for the Mexicans and Central Americans to get here as well and I don't understand how any rational person who claims to be concerned about the problem of illegal immigration can deny that a wall wouldn't work. (Actually, it makes perfect sense when the Democrat Party opposes the wall, but I'll ignore that for now)

You're right as far as not having problems with people with having illegal immigrants from other countries, but the problem IS there. There have been people from China, Vietnam, Nigeria, Sudan, the former Soviet Republics, and a host of other countries that do come here as well. They are coming here in greater numbers VIA Mexico and rogue freighters on our coastlines.

If you wish to ad politics to that be sure to blame the Republican Party as well. Remember, they made almost their ENTIRE campaign about immigration and it magically disappeared after the election with the funding for the wall being a total joke.

Sorry, but BOTH parties are to blame for it. Be consistent in your blame.

I'm not saying that a wall would magically solve all of these problems, but it would slow the crush to a trickle and it would enable the government a chance to catch its breath and get control of the problem and manage the externalities. If employers are short on labor and there are people from outside of the country willing to do the job for cheap, then by all means they should be matched up. But they should be matched up in such a way that is respectful of the true cost of employing these people and not in a way that costs the employer a few bucks in cash and our society an equal or larger amount in "invisible" costs and you can't do that if there is an unlimited supply of illegal immigrants willing to work surreptitiously.

You're right the wall won't solve all the problems, but I also believe that making migration easier and offering work visas and KEEPING UP WITH THEM would help immeasurably.

personally, I believe heavy fines should be made for employers are caught for the first time and increasingly crippling fines for each successive violation after that.

getting back on topic a bit, I'll reiterate that all violence that murders and gun violence cannot be the sole domain of Illegal immigrants. The NASA shooting proves that point.