“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation”
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
How to Destroy the Earth
As a good conservative, I am of course completely FOR the decimation of our environment, the subjugation of anyone not white and male, the pursuit of profit at the expense of everyone and everything (bonus points for ruining perfectly good air and water), and sundry other evil little things that bother hippies and mediacrats.
This post started as a response to Deputy Mayor in the comments of my previous post on how conservatives should look at voting strategy in 2006 and 2008. DM is a friend of mine who is very intelligent and well-spoken and we argue about politics mostly from the same place but in different approaches. I am a realist; he is a Randist.
This post is not meant in any way to harm or mock DM; this is simply my response, and Haloscan said I exceeded the allowable word count for comments. And you, dear Reader, are privy to our conversation....
Libertarians are right on immigration from a purely theoretical standpoint. Unfortunately, their view doesn't take into account reality. There are two things that stand in the way of the Libertarian immigration policy and reality. Security and welfare.
If there was no major threat from Muslim extremists, open borders would not be a so much of a security threat. (Some might argue that the 9/11 terrorists were legal. Maybe so, but why make it easier for future terrorists?)
Even if the threat of terrorism did not exist, there is another problem with open borders. The current state of our welfare system. There was a time when having immigrants come to this country was great! We had a worker shortage (as some claim we have now) and immigrants had two choices. Work when they got here or starve when they got here. Under the current semi-socialist system we currently live under, starvation is no longer an option. Now, one can come to this country and "live off the teet of society".
Fix these two problems (yeah, that's gonna happen) and I will return to the libertarian idea of open borders. Until then, build a wall.
And, for the record, I'm still all in favor of immigration. Just do it within the law. Is that so much to ask?Deputy Mayor Homepage 04.19.06 - 4:04 pm #
Big deal; Communism THEORETICALLY works ideally in populations under 80,000....Socialism THEORETICALLY works for industrial societies.....Democracy THEORETICALLY works when people don't choose to vote themselves money from their neighbor's pockets.
Theoretically I should be touring the world with a band that brings together the best parts of Pink Floyd, the Beatles, Dream Theater, and Dead Can Dance in a Cirque du Bleah-style show.
Theoretically we all play nice and nobody needs any rules forced on them by anyone else, corporeal or spiritual.
Theoretically the government follows its own laws and the Constitution is the respected Law of the Land.
Theoretically All Men Are Created Equal.
Theoretically if everyone did the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule, the majority of laws on the books would be unnecessary. (Keep in mind I am in NO way religious; that's simply a pretty good set of rules that will build character sufficient to creating a good life).
Nations without borders are not nations. By extension, personal property is not definable without the external boundaries. If the national government is not allowed to set its own boundaries then it has no mandate to set personal boundaries. Ergo, no law enforcement.
If you want to be a truly theoretical libertarian under your argument, you should never lock your doors -- let people come in and do what they please, trusting that they will honor and respect your own property rights and traditions of behavior in "your" house. After all, nobody gets to tell them where they can't go, right?
"There was a time when having immigrants come to this country was great!
..."Fix these two problems (yeah, that's gonna happen) and I will return to the libertarian idea of open borders. Until then, build a wall." "
There still is. You are confusing the issue -- the proponents of strenghening border security are not anti-immigration, only anti-ILLEGAL immigration.
If Juan Valdez wants to file the paperwork and come into the US legally to build my house or pick lettuce or pack meat, POWER TO HIM. He needs to learn English, have no criminal record at home or here, work toward citizenship, and choose to be an American as opposed to being a Reconquista. I want Juan to succeed and become fabulously wealthy and be the next 1st-generation success story.
Border-jumping Carlos, on the other hand, with his multiple arrests for drunk driving or assault or rape, who is only here to hang with his MS-13 pals and pick up welfare checks from his stolen SSN and use the free emergency rooms care for his various bullet/knife wounds and his anchor-babies borne by his various ho's, is *NOT* welcome and should be given no quarter. Why would the Libertarians wish to reward Carlos with free passage in and out of our home? The current argument for letting Juan in to do Americans' dirty work is also letting Carlos in to do his own dirty work. This is a problem that require governmental intervention as well as that EEEEVIL intrusion on businesses.
Libertarianism, like all philosophies, falls short of its goals in the face of human frailty. As long as humans continue to try to get something for themselves at the cost to someone else, there will be a need for a Mommy/Daddy figure to create and enforce rules of civilized behavior. In the grownup world, that's the government. Idealism and theoretical discussions are for the ivy-league classrooms. The debates after graduation and moving out into the real world require something more flexible and less ideal, in order to generate a workable solution to a real problem.
Libertarianism is also confused with anarchism -- a libertarian is not anti-government; rather, he is for limited government. This necessarily involves some degree of intrusion on personal freedoms that in the theoretical world is not allowed.
You also undercut the theoretical nature of your own argument -- you will abandon the theoretically beautiful principle of open borders FOR NOW and build the wall, and then return to the theoretically beautiful principle of open borders once the Hard Work is done? If abandoning principle is allowed, then why even bring up the theoretical argument?
Bringing in the welfare system is a wholly different argument -- it is a separate issue that needs reform of its own, but its relevance to this issue will be moot once the proper immigration and border policy is enforced.
"Under the current semi-socialist system we currently live under, starvation is no longer an option. Now, one can come to this country and "live off the teet of society".
This is a great point, and reminds me of something else I read. Forgive the paraphrasing and lack of attribution; I'm not sure where I read this, but I'm certainly not claiming authorship:
"Hi. See over here? We have lots of work, and need people to do it cheap. Yeah, you'll make more doing this than anything you do at home. If you bring the kids, we'll teach them. If the wife has a kid born on our property within 5 minutes of arriving, the kid is a citizen. If you get a boo-boo, we'll fix it for free. You won't have to learn English or pay taxes. Now, see that border and that river? You can't cross that. If you do, you get all this other stuff. But don't cross it. Yeah, you can just step over the trickle in some points, and if we catch you we might send you back home or we might not. Don't cross that river....."
Thus is incoherent immigration policy born.
At any rate, the post was about voting strategy for conservatives, not borders/immigration policy. You have been chastised by the Master of the House for off-topic commenting.
I lock the doors of my house and decide who gets to come in. Why can't I do the same with my nation?
The Repubs are absolutely fumbling the immigration issue, they're prosecuting the WoT ala Sir Joseph (from HMS Pinafore), and discretionary spending has expanded to the point that Lord Lott is Annoyed By The Pestering Of The Little People.
Understandably many of us are wondering where to go and seeing few options in the upcoming elections...we certainly don't want to reward these clowns with further public service employment, so voting FOR them is distasteful. Some are considering voting for 3rd parties or even switching, to make the point. Still others will stay at home and vote for "none of the above," so to speak.
Assuming one chooses to participate, what are the options?
The Dems are out of the question (and their minds).
The Libertarians are wrong on immigration and the Wot, and they're blinded by the glow of the Bic lighter reflecting off their bongs.
All other 3rd parties are so disorganized and powerless as to be 100% ineffective.
Independent means exactly that - a party of one.
Staying home is essentially an apathetic vote for the Socialists.
The correct strategy:
Support the more conservative primary challenger, making the point to the incumbent. This may or may not cost the seat in the general election, depending on the candidates. If the incumbent survives, a message has been sent. If the challenger prevails, an opportunity for conservatism is apparent.
When the general election rolls around, you have to vote for the Repub candidate, whoever that may be.
As fed up as we all are with the crop of RINOs, they are doing far less damage than the Socialist-Marxist Dems would do if given the majority of either or both houses. Make the point in the primary, but DO NOT STAY AT HOME on election day, and don't vote 3rd-party out of spite.
That way brought us 8 years of Klinton. Thanks, Ross...
For President, ditto -- support your preference in the primaries, but in the general election there is no logical choice other than pulling the lever for the Repub candidate, be it McCain, Frist, or any other RINO. A bad Republican is still better than any Democrat these days.
At this point it would seem to be all about limiting the damage, short of out-and-out revolution. Do your best for the guy you want, and if the "wrong one" wins the primary then swallow your pride and continue to vote (R) in the general.
If you can find and count 'em, you can detain and deport 'em....
Immigration is a national security matter. Once Iraq is settled and voters can feel better about that side of things, we as a group are going to have to be willing to send a message:
"If you do not end illegal immigration and protect our borders, we will vote for whoever runs against you, regardless of party. If you vote to end illegal immigration and to protect our borders, will vote for you, regardless of party."
Unlike abortion, immigration is a single-issue voter phenomenon that can have an immediate and effective impact. We have to be willing to vote for either a primary challenger or even a member of the other party and possibly lose "control" of one house or the other, in order that we might replace the Amnesty First crowd with Security First people.
It will require considerable political will not only on the part of the elected officials, but also of the voting public.
I don't know about the rest of you, but a Dem who will shut down illegal immigration and strengthen our borders will win a lot more points with me that a Repub who is wobbly on the issue. It is entirely plausible that someone who will back my position on this issue will most likely be of a like mind (or at least not insane) regarding the War on Terror, national security ini general, and can be worked with regarding taxes. Zell Miller, where are you?
If the borders/immigration issues are not resolved soon, the entire argument regarding tax cuts, national security, and judges will be rendered moot. The Repubs have the chance RIGHT NOW to do something strong and important, and the Senate is fumbling it badly. I see little if any point to rewarding bad behavior with further job security for these clowns.
Get on the phone. If they don't get this one right, the others don't matter.
And of course all the Stone Mountain welfare groupies that put this red menace back into her congressional seat see absolutely nothing wrong with her recent actions; moreover, they view her as a hero for Standin Up To Da Man....
ye Gods, what would Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, and Jefferson say?
Gangs of twerps skip school and shut down highways in California and storm courthouses in Texas. The major media broadcast 24/7 coverage of a "mass protest" and utterly miss the point. A US Senator, Sam Brownback, who also wants to be president, admits on Fox News that "enforcement simply doesn't work" despite the fact that enforcement hasn't really been tried. President Bush presses ahead with his amnesty deal, and McCain gets together with noted subversive Ted Kennedy to write his own amnesty bill. President Bush even goes on to say that whether it's illegal or not, people are going to participate in it anyway, so why not legalize it? By the way, we're talking about illegal immigration, not recreational pharmaceutical practices here....Every talking head complains about the lack of resources to move that many people around. And anyone who wants a border fence and/or deportation of illegals is a xenophobic, backward racist who wants to break up families.
You don't have to hunt down 11-25 MILLION people at once.
First -- Build the damn wall. You'd think a heart surgeon would know that you have to stop the bleeding before doing anything else. Second -- Muster the political will to hit employers and landlords of illegals heavily. Shut the spigot off -- no work and no place to live will convince them very quickly to get back home. Secondary to this, legislation regarding the anchor baby phenomenon needs teeth. Third -- Check the citizenship of every single person who is arrested, enters a hospital, jail, or government office for any reason, or applies for credit or banking services. If they are not legal, deport them immediately. The knock on this is that turns the US into a kind of "papers, please" society....while I'm not crazy about this picture, I know that it is necessary to correct the current course. Fourth -- Get the Fair Tax in place. Besides being good tax reform, it would take an immediate 23-25% chunck out of every dollar these illegals are getting paid cash (and currently avoiding paying taxes). As illegals they would not be eligible for the "prebate", so they would learn in a hurry to go home and come back legally. Secondarily, it limits the available money for them to send back to Mexico, keeping those dollars here and in our Treasury. Fifth -- Offer rewards for snitchers. And find some money/manpower to do the occasional sweep of the work hangouts and low-rent apartment communities.
The illegality of this situation is the problem. Most people are for controlled and legal immigration -- bright hardworking people who want to raise the American flag and learn English are certainly welcome in my neighborhood. The southwest is being reclaimed by Mexico, unofficially though it may be, and it is spreading.
Beyond the borders/immigration angle, the current situation is a terrible risk to our national security -- it boggles my mind that our President, who has pounded the drums for national security and providing security to Western Asia, has no political will to providing effective border control here at home.
You cannot truly hold the position that National Security is the most important duty, and allow the thousands of illegals to cross our borders every day, and further tolerate this action by not pursuing and deporting them, proposing amnesty, and making specious arguments about their "necessity" to our economy. Border Control is a fundamental part of national security, and to toss it aside as this administration and so many others before it have done, is to abdicate their constitutional duty to protect the American people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I know how to get Americans to recognize the importance of implementing a coherent security policy with respect to our borders and immigration control. 4 steps:
1. Find a connected mercenary. 2. Give him a functioning dirty bomb in Mexico and huge pile of money to sneak it across the border and into Dallas. 3. Prior to delivery, put a GPS tracker and remote detonater inside the weapon. Also get the Minuteman movement to announce a major border surveillance operation, drawing hordes of press and other lefties to the site. 4. Detonate when the mule is just inside US territory but not in a major populated area.
You'll see a fence go up faster than the Towers fell. Shortly thereafter you will see enforcement of existing immigration law, as well as highly draconian search-and-remove operations for in-country illegals.
This is a ridiculous and extreme idea. Even more ridiculous is that it makes more sense than anything I hear coming out of Washington on this issue.
Boy, I sure am glad that Congress had the stones to chase those stinking Arabs away from our ports.....that could have been D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S......