Uncategorized
If you’re one of those lots of money having types…
You should consider donating to the campaign of congressman Ron Paul.
Discussion
15 Comments
Leave a Reply
Buy Scott's Stickers
Social Bookmarks
© 2006 Stress. 
Great speech.
Take that you IslamoFascist-phobe, Santorum. Did you see him on Meet The Press? He was peddling exactly what Ron Paul warns about.
Scott:
Although RP is running for re - election as a Republican he is essentially a Libertarian and I believe he even ran for Prez as a Libertarian. I see from his Re - election site he seems to be taking a hardline on immigration (much like a Buchananite) including the “Minutemen,” recommending using the National Guard, and even ameding the Constitution so that those born in the USA from illegal alien parents would not be given citizenship. this would seems to put him at odds with the LP position per the LP their National website which seems to favor Open Immigration - although denial of Entitlements/Welfare for those crossing the border. I ran his district (the 14th) which is on the border so I imagine there is immense constituent pressure on him to “do something.”
Your cogent and sober analysis is invited. — Steve C
I knew he was bad on the borders, but I didn’t realize he was calling for Guard troops. That’s really bad. I understand that he’s in a tight race and might have to compromise a little, but that’s ridiculous.
I still hope he wins though. He’s the best congressman we’ve got.
Check it out yourself. Actually the wording is increased funding for border security - not specifically the National Guards. There is an endorsement letter from some virginia entity - US BORDER PATROL that praises an amendment restricting Visas for students from countries that sponsor terror
http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/security.html
HERE IS A SAMPLE OF THE TEXT:
Congressman Paul voted for the recent bill passed by the House of Representatives to secure our borders entitled, “The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act” - highlights of which include:
Maintain operational control over our land and maritime borders through increased deployment of Customs and Border Patrol officers
The use of new technologies in systematic surveillance, as well as ordering the joint cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense in border surveillance.
Prevention and monitoring for Central American gangs crossing the U.S. / Mexico border
Combat smuggling and human trafficking across the Mexican border
Increased prison penalties for first-time improper U.S. entry [See my - Steve C comment on this below]
Increased penalties for terrorism-related offenses
Dr. Paul has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to take away automatic citizenship for the children of non-citizens who come here illegally.
To be fair, while Illegal Aliens (or undocumented workers if you prefer) do pay taxes, they are mostly FEDERAL TAXES, while the services they use (school,hospitals) are generally from the STATE (CA, TX) and it does put an unfair burden on the states.
While I’m generally Libertarian on Immigration I don’t want Anarchy, and do favor ordely immigration and screening for terrorists/gangs/and any contagous diseases.
Regarding PRISON TIME - Doesn’t INCARCERATION costs the US TAXPAYER MORE than having them in the USA? What are you going to do - have them serve the time in Mexico (or whatever their country of origin is) - how enforceable is that. Or are you going to invoice the country of origin for the Incarceration costs. Or net it out from Foreign aid.
Congressman Paul has introduced legislation to make it impossible for illegal aliens or other criminal elements to steal somebody’s identity by abusing Social Security numbers. The “Identity Theft Prevention Act” and the “Social Security for Americans Only Act” will help prevent identity theft and stop the further drain of our Social Security trust funds by preventing Social Security payments to non-citizens.
Above is another excerpt………
I work in commercial receivables. Certain legislation may make it MORE DIFFICULT for Illegal Aliens (or anyone else) to steal someone’s identity using SS# but to use the term “IMPOSSIBLE” as it is used in the opening sentense is ludicrous.
Also, didn’t the USA support the Taliban (sponsors of Al Qaeda) in their fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.
I assume that this legislation prohibits giving US Students visas to travel abroad since the USA is (by that definition) a sponsor of terror.
Also, couldn’t the 4.5B given annually to Israel be construed as sponsoring state terror (against the Palestinians or the Lebanese) or even ecological terrorism (have yyou heard about the Mediterranean Coastline lately?).
Well, maybe you can call me an unprincipled libertarian, but I don’t believe we can have “open-borders”. Someone at LewRockwell.com had a good example: (In went something like this) “As a libertarian anarcho-capitalist, I do not find it un-libertarian of me to support rules for government owned roads… In fact, I am glad they have them, in this case!”
If we take the rubric stick of a free society of full private property rights, you would not have “open-borders”. All land would be private and as a result there would be no such thing as “illegal immigration”. And if you take our free society rubric stick, I can pretty much say that probably around 50%(+) of the illegals that are in the US right now would not be here.
In a free society I can’t see how the average person would open the flood gates to their living rooms. I don’t see how the average person would allow someone with a different language to come in without learning it first. And I don’t see this much criminal element of illegals being allowed to enter. What I do see is a *real* melting pot. A system that would screen out a lot of the illegals that, are now in.
The arguments made by a lot of libertarians, in my view, are wrong. A prerequisite for the free-market economic defense is having a free-market! But we do not have a free-market. The ones that are here do give some people a plus, but I think; correct me if I am wrong, it seems on the net through government services there is a drain—it is not a plus. Government provides perverse incentives. It attracts a lot of people that would not otherwise be here. It provides an atmosphere where it makes immigrants less inclined to make a commitment here, but to keep on sending money to Mexico.
Here in Arizona there are examples of hospitals that have closed down due to illegal immigration. When this happens it does not move us closer to freedom. And, I do not think this can be emphasized enough, the cultural decay and split creates a lot of racial hostilities that we are experiencing right now. The melting pot is broke. I live in Arizona—-and I can tell you—-this is a super hot issue. Racial hostilities are high and growing. This is not unexpected. This is predictable.
This is just my view. Maybe it shows my social conservatism showing, but I can’t see how you can have open borders.
Most economists [even those opposed to immigration for other reasons] (and I know anyone can do anything w/ numbers) regard illegal immigration as net neutral or even a plus. That (of course) does not mean it effects everyone equally. As stated, Taxes paid by Illegals are Federal Taxes. Services received by Illegals are mostly state services. Cheap labor means employers save money (a plus). It also means they can offer services (contracting/landscaping) at cheaper prices to consumers (a plus). It also serves to depress wages of the unskilled - a minus to that class.
The problem with the hospitals is with 3rd parties paying all the bills there is no incentive to keep costs down.
Frankly I think some Mexican guy coming (yes illegally) across the border to get a job as a day laborer, share a room with 5 o6 6 guys like him, and send half his money back home is MORE AMERICAN than some 3rd generation Labor Union POS making $45 hr for what should be a minimum wage job (ie toll collector).
The Central American gangs are a legitimate concern as is terrorism but this can be done by having an orderly immigration process that screens for criminals/terrorists.
I generally tend to go the other way whebever I see a politician playing on peoples fears - and I believe that is what most of those get tough on the borders types are doing - playing on peoples fears.
With exceptions to Rep. Paul and P. Buchanon, most of those anti - immigration types are the same guys that pushed for war with Iraq and now are pushing for Iran - and they are using the same tactic - fear.
By the way, don’t you see a great inconsistentcy w/ our immigration stance on Cubans as opposed to say Haitians.
SC
RP’s stance on borders is a bit annoying, though I recall you Scott) jumping all over Badnarik for a softer (though still annoying) stance on the borders. Personally, I’m all for jumping on an otherwise good candidate (be they libertarians or otherwise). I think many libertarians are, which is what differentiates us from the Dems and the Reps; most people in either party will ignore when someone on “their” side does something that goes against the tenants of their side and even make excuses for them. The Dems did it with Clinton when Clinton was actually somewhat fiscally conservative in a few areas, the Reps are doing it now with Bush. The one recent exception that comes to mind is Lieberman.
But libertarians, at least those that I know, ALWAYS bring up any anti-liberty stances that their candidates take, and slam them for it. This is as it should be.
That said, I like Ron Paul a lot and have few quarrels with what he has to say, and would still support him over anyone running against him, but wouldn’t be shy about voicing my complaints against his immigration policy. But then, I’m not in Texas, so… (still might contribute to his and Badnarik’s campaigns, if I can scrape some extra dough up, but they’ll both be told how I feel about their ideas on immigration).
Speaking of Ron Paul, does anyone know of a place that archives his speeches (either / or both audio and / or video) in some non-streaming form? I’d like to be able to download them and watch them later or copy mp3s to a disc to listen to later. I’ve come across a few of his speeches as mp3s somewhere, Cato maybe, but I’m looking for a fairly complete archive, or at least one that holds recent speeches.
Maybe you’ll think I’m an upstart sonuvabitch for broaching the topic. But LP Politicians, polemicists, propagandists, organizers, strategists etc. can’t have this Goddamn Border issue both ways. We don’t have the constituant numbers, nor the time. It amounts to Medievals sitting around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Further such equivocation—on any issue—Will be the beginning of our undoing. Indeed, equivocation; or what Machiavelli termed “Promise much, do little.” By Republicans and Democrats is the principal reason we are now the 3rd largest party in The Nation today…and if you are as cynical as I am about things: The only reason. It’s like this ladies and gentelmen—The electorate is TIRED OF INSTITUTIONAL INERTIA. And that makes the LP look Goddamn good to ‘em on a ballot. Bottom line? “He who hesitates is lost.” So make up your minds one way or the other and let’s run with it…
Actually, I disgree here.
Considering the REACTIONARY/STATIST userpation of power by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH Institional Inertia might be a blessing.
When a given change is a bad change the status quo is actually a plus.
Regarding RP on immigration, I disgree with his stated position (although I wonder if it is borne out of political necessity) and as a statement of fact it is AGAINST the Libertarian position (though he running as a Republican). This does not mean we should strive for “Purity” or even that one might not make a coherent position on immigration advocating restriction/prohibition that under a rationale is Libertarian.
Digression: Do any Libertarians out there think the extremity of the Bushist statism is helpful to Libertarianism to the extent that its extremity may drive middle of the roaders to explore more radical philosophies - like libertarianism. I think an old commie quote goes, “The Worse, The Better.”
Mace: The libertarian response to ANYTHING should be “less (or no) government interference,” always. Anything else is not a libertarian response. I agree with those people who say there should be NO illegal immigration. There are two simple libertarian answers to that. First of all, stop criminalizing immigration, and there will be no illegal immigration, because it will all be legal. Now, for those scared of all the brown people moving into the U.S., there is also a libertarian answer. Buy land along the border and put up all the fences and post all the armed guards you want — with your own money. If people coming over the borders is SUCH a concern, there should be plenty of people willing to pool their money, or just each buy individual plots of land, on which to do just that. Of course, if people don’t want to sell their land, tough luck. But everyone has their price. If I had land along the border I’d probably be willing to sell it to the xenophobes for…I dunno…$10 million per acre, maybe. If they’re that concerned, they’ll raise the money. If not, then I guess immigrants can continue coming in unhindered.
Steve C: I think that right now is a GREAT time for libertarians to get people to join our side. There are enough disaffected republicans that we should be able to get a bunch of them, and there are enough anti-war democrats that are sick of all the bellicose democrat politicians that we should be able to get a bunch of them as well. It may not be enough to win elections in 2006, but it could be enough to make both sides take notice, and get enough people interested enough in libertarianism to read further on the subject, which will certainly bring more people to our side. Right now is a GREAT opportunity for any liberty-minded individuals, whether they consider themselves libertarian or not. Just go out and talk to people and explain the position, recommend books to people based on where they’re coming from (like “Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression” for democrats, and “Why government Doesn’t Work” for republicans). We need to take advantage of this opportunity, capitalize on it, and not squander it.
Back to Political basics. The more united this party becomes in times of dissatisfaction, the faster it moves. But the more realistic it becomes the longer it endures. The quicker it loses titles and identities such as Radical Philosophy, Anarcho-Capitalism and the rest, the more attractive it becomes to those very same moderates in the electorate that are CRUCIAL to its CONTINUANCE and EXPANSION. This is, or was, basically a moderate Nation. Interesting word Nation, it infers cultural uniformity. But I’m straying from the point. The biggest obstacle The LP faces presently, is itself. Trust me. I am a Realist, not a Revisionist: 2+2 is always gonna have to equal 4…No one here is stupid, a bit mad perhaps, but not stupid.
Range: I have the idea that the credo of the Libertarian should be a willingness to discuss in the open, those cruel realities which are seldom revealed to the public by the long established dictates of Political Science as an intellectual discipline. In time, all definitions must be revised. Thus it must not be a question; or fantasy of deconstructing the State—But of further limiting its destructive tendencies in a time which they are increasing. Even now the topic of increasing power is already being actively discussed in elite think tanks…maybe even one of ours.