Trump as tragicomedy

[Kbg]

The best solution to immigration, but one that no one is even proposing, is to get rid of the welfare state.

You do realize the welfare state is a very minor cause at best of immigration, right? Far and away the largest causes of immigration are large scale violence and catastrophic environmental failure. The former is the usual cause starting in the 20th century and both have been a consistent theme of recorded human history with the latter being a simple thing like drought, crop failure etc.

So what's the relevance now...most illegal immigrants south of the border are flowing from Central American countries whose states are no longer states that operate at any level other than violence and corruption.

P.S. Anarchism is a really, really, really stupid philosophy normally espoused by people surrounded and protected by a state who haven't taken the time to check out history or understand how humans in groups actually operate and behave normally. This is not the same as saying all states are good and an "evil" state can't wreak immense havoc on other states and the state's citizens. However, the vast majority of humanity prefers to be in a state with the physical safety they provide. Any benefits above safety are a nice bonus. The political literature of the late 1600s to the early 1800s is absolutely phenomenal on this point. Some great minds have hashed this topic over thoroughly.

There is no possible way you can make a good case for anarchism without also assuming utopianism...and most people intuitively understand the problem with that assumption.

[WiseOne]

I presume boglerdude means that if all forms of welfare were abolished, some people (e.g. elderly with no savings, or truly disabled people with no family to take care of them) will starve, lose their homes/be evicted from apartments and become homeless, etc. Sorry, I can't sign on to that either. The problem is that Libertarian666 is correct that you can't have both welfare benefits and uncontrolled, unlimited immigration. If we want to keep welfare benefits without state/local costs ballooning out of control (more than they already are), we simply have to put a lid on uncontrolled immigration. Otherwise, if you support open borders, you are essentially sacrificing the most vulnerable US citizens to that cause.

A friend and I were talking about the perverse use of "asylum-seekers" to describe the economic migrants in the caravans. I find that to be frankly offensive. These are people who came up with the $7K fee to get themselves smuggled into the US so they can improve their quality of life - hardly abject poverty, and totally unrelated to fleeing genocide or war in, for example, Rwanda or Kosovo. My maternal grandparents left Palestine in the 1930s, and a great-uncle left in rather extreme circumstances in 1948 (details omitted as some are likely to find them upsetting). If anyone had a claim to asylum they certainly did, but they did not get it. Instead, they went to the British West Indies and Honduras (respectively), got in line for a US immigration visa, and waited their turn. When they got here, they were economically self-sufficient and would have regarded being on welfare as a source of shame. Those were the days of the giants, I guess.

Just saw kbg's post...historically you may be right, but there is something different about the Central American migration that's going on now. There are Americans going down there to help recruit for the caravans, and the "coyotes" driving them are earning a very handsome profit.

[dualstow]

What happened to your uncle, WiseOne?

[WiseOne]

What happened to your uncle, WiseOne?

Well, it's likely to disrupt the rose colored narrative that many people hold of the birth of Israel, but here goes:

My great-uncle was a math professor at the Arab University in Jerusalem in 1948, and was pretty solidly middle to upper middle class with a home in Jerusalem, savings in the bank, and at the time 3 children (think the oldest was around 6). According to him, the new Israeli state went after Arabs holding government positions first, which included professorial appointments. His bank accounts were frozen and his home was taken from him. We guess it was given to an immigrating Jewish family, as my mother & sister went to see it several years back and a Jewish family was indeed living in it. He was supposed to go to one of the resettlement camps, whatever you want to call them. Instead, he filled a big cardboard box with a few belongings he was able to salvage, and left Jerusalem with that and the clothes they were wearing when they were driven out of their home, nothing else. We know that my grandfather, who was living in the West Indies at the time and was doing very well financially, helped him get out of the country. My uncle ended up in Honduras, which is one of the few countries that would accept Palestinians at the time. He attempted to get refugee status in the US, but was told they didn't qualify. I remember him describing the place they ended up living in Honduras, with the cardboard box as their kitchen table. He went into business for himself as a store owner, same as my grandfather, and 18 years later his number came up on the US immigration wait list.

That's the story as he told it, in his unique mix of Spanish, Arabic and English, minus some pretty strong opinions and commentary. Anyway, my thought is that if my uncle didn't qualify for US asylum at that time, then the rules must have loosened up considerably if someone "fleeing poverty" can now claim it.

[dualstow]

Very interesting (and sad), and pretty close to what I was thinking. Except Honduras!

[Libertarian666]

The best solution to immigration, but one that no one is even proposing, is to get rid of the welfare state.

You do realize the welfare state is a very minor cause at best of immigration, right? Far and away the largest causes of immigration are large scale violence and catastrophic environmental failure. The former is the usual cause starting in the 20th century and both have been a consistent theme of recorded human history with the latter being a simple thing like drought, crop failure etc.

So what's the relevance now...most illegal immigrants south of the border are flowing from Central American countries whose states are no longer states that operate at any level other than violence and corruption.

P.S. Anarchism is a really, really, really stupid philosophy normally espoused by people surrounded and protected by a state who haven't taken the time to check out history or understand how humans in groups actually operate and behave normally. This is not the same as saying all states are good and an "evil" state can't wreak immense havoc on other states and the state's citizens. However, the vast majority of humanity prefers to be in a state with the physical safety they provide. Any benefits above safety are a nice bonus. The political literature of the late 1600s to the early 1800s is absolutely phenomenal on this point. Some great minds have hashed this topic over thoroughly.

There is no possible way you can make a good case for anarchism without also assuming utopianism...and most people intuitively understand the problem with that assumption.

Statism is a really, really stupid philosophy normally espoused by people who have been brainwashed by the "publik skool" system meant to keep the population in thrall to their masters. How many millions of people have been murdered by States? How many hundreds have been murdered by self-styled anarchists?

As for anarchism, you obviously know very little about it. Read https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Orde ... B012DL2SQ2 and get back to us.

[Xan]

Can't it be said that statism is the emergent order that forms out of anarchy?

[Kbg]

Just saw kbg's post...historically you may be right, but there is something different about the Central American migration that's going on now. There are Americans going down there to help recruit for the caravans, and the "coyotes" driving them are earning a very handsome profit.

Sure there's an economic aspect to it, not saying there isn't. However, do you really think they would be coming here if their countries were economically sound? And why aren't t their countries economically sound? Interestingly we don't have a Canadian, German or Japanese immigration problem.

But my main point...poor economies in the countries we are talking about is a symptom not the cause.

[Libertarian666]

Can't it be said that statism is the emergent order that forms out of anarchy?

What I (and most others) mean by "Statism" is the political position that a State is either necessary or desirable, not the mere existence of States, which is an historical fact.

[WiseOne]

Just saw kbg's post...historically you may be right, but there is something different about the Central American migration that's going on now. There are Americans going down there to help recruit for the caravans, and the "coyotes" driving them are earning a very handsome profit.

Sure there's an economic aspect to it, not saying there isn't. However, do you really think they would be coming here if their countries were economically sound? And why aren't t their countries economically sound? Interestingly we don't have a Canadian, German or Japanese immigration problem.

But my main point...poor economies in the countries we are talking about is a symptom not the cause.

I don't think it's that Central American economies are "unsound", simply that the US's is better. Which leads many Central American citizens to want to trade up, and I can't say I blame them. Historically, this is enough to spur emigration - you don't necessarily need a national catastrophe to explain it. I just question the emerging principle that immigration to the US is a "human right." I would also like our government to tackle the question of what a sensible level of unskilled immigration should be, in order to preserve that quality of life & economic stability that is attracting immigrants here to begin with - instead of simply leaving the front door wide open.

[drumminj]

I don't think it's that Central American economies are "unsound", simply that the US's is better...<snip>...I just question the emerging principle that immigration to the US is a "human right."

I think it's certainly reflecting in this context on what is it that has made the US a better place w.r.t. economic freedom, opportunity, etc. Diluting the cultural values, mindset, etc, is likely to have an (negative) impact on the future state of things.

IMO, this is where controlled immigration is critical.

[I Shrugged]

Instead of the nuclear doomsday clock, we need one for the USA splitting up. It's human nature to want to associate with "your own kind". I think we will split up, maybe in our lifetimes. I thought so before 2016. Now even more.

[dualstow]

Instead of the nuclear doomsday clock, we need one for the USA splitting up. It's human nature to want to associate with "your own kind". I think we will split up, maybe in our lifetimes. I thought so before 2016. Now even more.

Are you talking politics or .... “race war”?

[I Shrugged]

Politics. And culture.

[boglerdude]

Race war, letting the poor die...thread would be locked on Bogleheads xD (not good to suppress discussion)

We need to extend rail so housing can be built on less expensive land. With a lower cost of living we can have a lower minimum wage and therefore more jobs and GDP. All businesses could be open 24/7 for example, when you dont need to pay the night shift cashier $100/night

[stuper1]

Why do we need a minimum wage at all?

I thought we had a free-market economy. That's what the media likes to claim when it's convenient. Let market forces decide what each person's labor is worth.

I suspect, although maybe it's hard to prove, that on the whole, a minimum wage just ends up taking jobs away from low-skill people by incentivizing automation or off-shoring to countries that don't have a minimum wage anyway.

[Kriegsspiel]

I suspect, although maybe it's hard to prove, that on the whole, a minimum wage just ends up taking jobs away from low-skill people by incentivizing automation or off-shoring to countries that don't have a minimum wage anyway.

To continue that thought: and it's more palatable to a lot of people (Democrats) to re-distribute wealth from the wealthy to the would-be proles that aren't getting those jobs (even if the WBPs want them); they don't think anyone should do them.

[Kbg]

.

[barrett]

.

Shortest post of 2019 so far!

[Kbg]

I am to achieve big things this year.

On a more serious note, sometimes you just write stupid stuff and previously when I did that on this forum I would just delete the post. But the last couple of times I get a message saying the post can't be deleted.

Did this change or am I missing something?

[dualstow]

I am to achieve big things this year.

On a more serious note, sometimes you just write stupid stuff and previously when I did that on this forum I would just delete the post. But the last couple of times I get a message saying the post can't be deleted.

Did this change or am I missing something?

I think Xan answered this in another thread, though I can't remember the details. Maybe it someone (including you) after an older post, that older post is no longer deletable? Something like that.

And for what it's worth, as soon as I posted this, I saw both the edit pencil and the delete 'x', so posts are deletable for a while.

[Libertarian666]

Why do we need a minimum wage at all?

I thought we had a free-market economy. That's what the media likes to claim when it's convenient. Let market forces decide what each person's labor is worth.

I suspect, although maybe it's hard to prove, that on the whole, a minimum wage just ends up taking jobs away from low-skill people by incentivizing automation or off-shoring to countries that don't have a minimum wage anyway.

Guess what the minimum wage is in Switzerland?
0.

Are companies offshoring there?

(But of course it is well known that a higher minimum wage has exactly those effects: automation or offshoring to cheaper countries.)

[jacksonM]

No pun intended, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that one of the two first Muslim women elected to congress decided that her first public statement after being sworn in was going to be "impeach the mother*****".

Only in America.

[Kriegsspiel]

Congress is a place where some people like you, some of them hate you, some will try to help you, some will try to fuck you over. Some are noble people, some are pieces of shit. Like John Boehner said:

"We’ve got some of the smartest people in America who serve in the Congress, and we’ve got some of the dumbest. We have some of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet, and some that are Nazis. Congress is nothing more than a slice of America."

[Libertarian666]

Congress is a place where some people like you, some of them hate you, some will try to help you, some will try to fuck you over. Some are noble people, some are pieces of shit. Like John Boehner said:

"We’ve got some of the smartest people in America who serve in the Congress, and we’ve got some of the dumbest. We have some of the nicest people you’d ever want to meet, and some that are Nazis. Congress is nothing more than a slice of America."

It's a slice all right, but mostly off the bottom of the barrel.
Very few sensible or reasonably moral people want to be, or can be elected to be, Congresspersons.
There are probably a few dozen exceptions, but the majority are morally and intellectually inferior to the average person in the US.