Gyroscopic Investing

craigr wrote:

craigr wrote:

Fred wrote:But back to the original topic of Trump I just listened to a short clip on Fox News last night and it suddenly occurred to me that by gosh, he really  could pull this off and win. He's tapping into populist feelings that nobody else dares to mention.

Trump is working with Senator Jeff Sessions on an immigration policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

If this is true, it's great news for America. He could very easily win the GOP nomination just on this one point alone depending on how much Sen. Sessions drives it. Sen. Sessions truly understands the problem and the serious impact it is having on America's future.

It's official, I'm in love!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ion-reform

Trump 2016.

Sounds good, but if we piss off Mexico, they might shut down the drug and migrant worker supply to the USA in retaliation.  Horror of horrors!  How will the normal working class folks afford to get high, especially if they have been out picking lettuce and apples all day?  We should simultaneously eliminate liquor taxes if this immigration restriction stuff is to have a chance of working.  Ditto gasoline and diesel taxes since people may actually have to drive to work instead of front porch sitting while waiting on a welfare check. 

... M

craigr wrote: In honor of Trump's latest announcement, I'm reposting a formerly lost blog entry on how I'd go after employers for hiring illegals:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160324133 ... ation-act/

Trump 2016!

Trump is for a border fence, as I am, and as you've expressed you are not.  Is he also in favor of punishing employers for hiring illegals?  I haven't heard him say that.

Pardon my ignorance, but who are all these employers that are hiring illegal immigrants and are part of the "Chamber of Commerce Crowd" that so heavily influences both political parties?  I'm aware of the day labor side of things, but those "employers" don't seem to fit with the profile of the typical Chamber of Commerce member, or their level of influence.  Where are all of these illegal immigrants working?  I assume agriculture is big... where else?

flyingpylon wrote: Where are all of these illegal immigrants working?  I assume agriculture is big... where else?

Construction and restaurant kitchens, to name a few that immediately spring to mind.

Simonjester wrote: as well as motels, landscaping/lawn care

flyingpylon wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but who are all these employers that are hiring illegal immigrants and are part of the "Chamber of Commerce Crowd" that so heavily influences both political parties?  I'm aware of the day labor side of things, but those "employers" don't seem to fit with the profile of the typical Chamber of Commerce member, or their level of influence.  Where are all of these illegal immigrants working?  I assume agriculture is big... where else?

Restaurants.

... M

craigr wrote: Don't forget cheap legal immigrant shills like meat packers as well. It's no coincidence that refugee resettlement programs are setup to dump people in small towns that happen to have a meat packing plant nearby.

And, don't forget, prison inmates, abortion clinic parts deliverers, drug mules, checkout counter overpriced item buyers, drivers license users, and TV preacher victims.  Nasty jobs but someone has to do it. 

... M

craigr wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:drivers license users

But illegals need those driver's licenses so they can buy car insurance. Everyone knows that illegals come to the U.S. so they have the opportunity to buy car insurance.

Do you think they prefer the gecko, Flo, are just a good neighbor, or are on your side?

... M

craigr wrote: If not, let me state for the record that open borders liberals/libertarians are idiots.

Calling on govt to fix a govt-created problem...

Who's the idiot now?

craigr wrote: Of all the things govt. is actually supposed to do, defending the borders you'd think would be on the short list, no?

Craig, what do you think of the argument that we need more immigrants paying into social security to fix the looming baby-boomer social security crisis, since Americans aren't having enough babies? I've heard John Stossel and others make it.

I suppose that is at least a reasonable argument one can make with immigrants from countries like India and the Philippines who generally end up with a household income greater than the average American family. As for illegals arriving from South of the Border with no skills to offer, I doubt that this idea will wash as they tend to be a net drain on resources.

craigr wrote:

Stewardship wrote:

craigr wrote: If not, let me state for the record that open borders liberals/libertarians are idiots.

Calling on govt to fix a govt-created problem...

Who's the idiot now?

Is this a trick question?

No!  Government has made it very difficult for law-abiders to immigrate and very easy for law-breakers.  Like with gun control, we'd have a better situation today if the government had just stayed out of it.  Whenever the government tries to fix problems it just makes them worse.

And now you want to fix the problem by having the government make life harder for illegals.  I'm honestly afraid to see what we'd have to resort to in order to make illegals' lives harder than they were in the countries they came from.  Just hope citizens won't get caught in the crossfire, which they will.

Haven't we learned from the war on drugs?  Highest incarceration rate in the world and drugs are still rampant?  Government doesn't work.

I'm tired of government solutions, and I don't want any part of it.  I'm an American citizen who works full time and has never done drugs.  None of my friends or family are here illegally or do any drugs that I know of. I'll make a stand with pot smokers and illegals before subjecting to a police/prison state.  Along with many other Americans, I'll just be collateral damage.

craigr wrote:
Of all the things govt. is actually supposed to do, defending the borders you'd think would be on the short list, no?

It depends on what you mean by defending the borders.  I wouldn't consider any of the bold in the below post to be "defending the borders."

craigr wrote: No I'm for a border fence, but without harsh interior enforcement it won't work. I want to make illegal alien labor toxic waste and their existence in the country difficult. Make it a huge liability to hire them and punish states that give them taxpayer goodies. Shut down birthright citizenship as well. Also have a legal immigration moratorium in some form. Trump touched on all those issues.

Trump stated he will enforce E-Verify, but left out details. It is probably too arcane for most Americans to understand, but the employers will likely get the message in what he is saying.

craigr wrote: I don't think you understand that if the current situation continues you will have your police state in spades. Most of the police state that exists today is directly linked to bad immigration policy:

- PATRIOT Act - Bad immigration of people that shouldn't have been allowed in. Visa overstayers. National security threats.
- TSA - Ditto.
- NSA Spying - Again, they didn't get those powers to monitor Amish rabble rousers. Hello Tsarnaev Brothers.
- Gun Control Laws - A lot of gun crime is caused by illegal and legal aliens. Every alien gang banger causes gun controllers to get more power. See Chattanooga, Tennesee.
- Health Care Costs - Driven up by having to care for uninsured illegals and their kids.
- Failing Schools - Being shattered by serving many people and languages which diverts resources. Many failing school districts are swamped with immigrants that shouldn't be here either legally or illegally.
- Bloated Welfare - Large number of foreign born consumers again.
- Packed Jails - Look at most wanted police blotters in most major cities and see if a pattern is present. There is a surprising lack of French Canadians.
- Various Fraud, etc. - Again a large amount is foreign born and culturally detached from what an American would do.

So you know when I call open border libertarians idiots, I just don't know how to argue the point except with mockery because facts don't work. All I say above is easily verified by anyone not holding a confirmation bias or political ideology that opposes it.

Having been on both sides of this argument recently, I'm sympathetic to Stewardship's point but ultimately I think Craig has it right. It's easy to say that most of the problems Craig highlights are themselves ultimately caused by government: the TSA and NSA's creation were driven by 9/11 hysteria which was blowback to decades of bad American foreign policy; welfare fraud is inevitable given the deleterious nature of welfare itself; packed jails are caused by to victimless crime laws, etc, and there's truth behind these assertions.

But the fatal flaw in highlighting them is the implicit assumption that these problems are somehow politically rectifiable with an infusion of libertarianism, as though a plurality or majority of the U.S. population is somehow going to become sufficiently libertarian as to cause the government to adopt a more moderate foreign policy, repeal welfare, respect people's privacy, decriminalize victimless crimes, etc. The sad truth is that this is simply not all that libertarian of a country--it's just not going to happen, and Craig is absolutely right that the possibility becomes more remote with every non-northern-European immigrant who enters the country. Most immigrants to the USA these days come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America--regions of the world not known for their thriving libertarian movements. On a practical level, it is a serious truth that political libertarianism becomes a dimmer prospect the more immigrants from these regions enter the country.

Ultimately, having borders implicitly requires their maintenance and defense, and the segregation of insiders and outsiders. If that function is compromised, so too is the border itself. And without a border, society crumbles once selfish actors realize this and take advantage of this fact. Imagine how much you'd like to live in a house near a marginal neighborhood that lacked walls or doors. It's the same principle on the societal level.

Simonjester wrote: i have either. never heard a well explained well reasoned out version of libertarian open borders, or maybe it just cant be made... i could understand reciprocal open borders between equal nations.. if japan, England Australia and Canada wanted free entry into the US and were offering free entry into their country for any american, then maybe it would be closer to reasonable or at lest be far smoother than open borders with any and all random country's, who have all manner of incompatible ideals, economy's and standards..

craigr wrote: Actually the government has made it relatively easy for people to immigrate legally and illegally. They just put the focus on bad immigration that helps large companies get cheap labor instead of citizens that want a stable and safe society.

The H-1B non-immigrant visa requires employment in a specialty occupation and a higher education degree or its equivalent to start.  None of that is required of an illegal.

craigr wrote:I don't think you understand that if the current situation continues you will have your police state in spades. Most of the police state that exists today is directly linked to bad immigration policy:

- PATRIOT Act - Bad immigration of people that shouldn't have been allowed in. Visa overstayers. National security threats.
- TSA - Ditto.
- NSA Spying - Again, they didn't get those powers to monitor Amish rabble rousers. Hello Tsarnaev Brothers.
- Gun Control Laws - A lot of gun crime is caused by illegal and legal aliens. Every alien gang banger causes gun controllers to get more power. See Chattanooga, Tennesee.
- Health Care Costs - Driven up by having to care for uninsured illegals and their kids.
- Failing Schools - Being shattered by serving many people and languages which diverts resources. Many failing school districts are swamped with immigrants that shouldn't be here either legally or illegally.
- Bloated Welfare - Large number of foreign born consumers again.
- Packed Jails - Look at most wanted police blotters in most major cities and see if a pattern is present. There is a surprising lack of French Canadians.
- Various Fraud, etc. - Again a large amount is foreign born and culturally detached from what an American would do.

So you know when I call open border libertarians idiots, I just don't know how to argue the point except with mockery because facts don't work. All I say above is easily verified by anyone not holding a confirmation bias or political ideology that opposes it.

I don't know if you understand the libertarian position.  If you do, you're not addressing it.  Arguing that government is incapable of solving the immigration problem and only makes it worse, isn't the same as arguing that there is no immigration problem or nothing should be done about it.

craigr wrote:We have California as a prime example of immigration run afoul. There is not a single metric in the state that I would say is improving, which is surprising because they are near de facto open borders at this point. According to open borders advocates, it should be Galt's Gulch by now.

Law-abiders are still being kept out of California, so the failures there are the result of dysfunctional immigration policy, not open borders.

Pointedstick wrote: But the fatal flaw in highlighting them is the implicit assumption that these problems are somehow politically rectifiable with an infusion of libertarianism, as though a plurality or majority of the U.S. population is somehow going to become sufficiently libertarian as to cause the government to adopt a more moderate foreign policy, repeal welfare, respect people's privacy, decriminalize victimless crimes, etc. The sad truth is that this is simply not all that libertarian of a country--it's just not going to happen, and Craig is absolutely right that the possibility becomes more remote with every non-northern-European immigrant who enters the country. Most immigrants to the USA these days come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America--regions of the world not known for their thriving libertarian movements. On a practical level, it is a serious truth that political libertarianism becomes a dimmer prospect the more immigrants from these regions enter the country.

I've never understood this argument.  Libertarianism is just not going to happen.  Well in that case neither is a secure border and a sane immigration policy.  On a practical level, both ideas are dim prospects.

Stewardship wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: But the fatal flaw in highlighting them is the implicit assumption that these problems are somehow politically rectifiable with an infusion of libertarianism, as though a plurality or majority of the U.S. population is somehow going to become sufficiently libertarian as to cause the government to adopt a more moderate foreign policy, repeal welfare, respect people's privacy, decriminalize victimless crimes, etc. The sad truth is that this is simply not all that libertarian of a country--it's just not going to happen, and Craig is absolutely right that the possibility becomes more remote with every non-northern-European immigrant who enters the country. Most immigrants to the USA these days come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America--regions of the world not known for their thriving libertarian movements. On a practical level, it is a serious truth that political libertarianism becomes a dimmer prospect the more immigrants from these regions enter the country.

I've never understood this argument.  Libertarianism is just not going to happen.  Well in that case neither is a secure border and a sane immigration policy.  On a practical level, both ideas are dim prospects.

I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but implementability matters. The most beautiful, theoretically correct idea in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if it can't be implemented, which in politics means that it's supported by a majority or an extremely passionate, well-organized, well-funded, politically-active, and sizable minority. Given that libertarians are nowhere near a majority and as a minority are terribly organized and bad at politics, libertarian ideas live or die by their support among non-libertarians; for example, gun rights is a libertarian position that is winning because of Republican support, and likewise with drug legalization and Democratic support.

Politics is inherently a numbers game. The surprising truth is that securing the border is actually a very popular position that has been repressed by both R and D party elites. Here's some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... conundrum/

Two other elements - stricter border control and more visas for highly skilled workers - win broader backing, from 80 and 72 percent, respectively.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... e-reduced/

Majorities of Republicans (67 percent) and independents (53 percent) as well as a plurality of Democrats (47 percent) want to decrease legal immigration.

Still, the poll finds 60 percent of voters think it is not strict enough, and another 68 percent want new border security measures to be completed before changes to immigration policies. 


http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illin ... order.html

The latest Rasmussen poll finds that 82% of American Adults think it is important to secure the border to prevent future illegal immigration, with 60% who say it is Very Important.

A position that is supported by such an overwhelming majority can only be denied for so long, and Trump is tapping into the anger caused by this elite repression of such a popular position. You can't deny the majority for long in a representative government, especially on an issue that people feel very strongly about, like border control.

And on a practical level, admitting a lot of new poor people and refugees isn't going to do much to bolster support for ending welfare. Refugees and poor people are not and can not be libertarian. They are too low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs to even begin to appreciate the benefits of freedom. Notice how libertarians tend to be wealthy, highly educated, male, from a European background, and interested in esoteric technical matters? It's really not a coincidence. Demographically speaking, the fewer members of the population who resemble that, the worse libertarianism is gonna do.

craigr wrote:
The program is rife with abuse.

Of course it is.  Its a government program.

craigr wrote: Law abiding or not it doesn't matter.

It matters to you.  Or at least it seemed earlier in this thread when you were pointing out illegals as a group have no respect for the law.  Would you say legal immigrants as a group have more or less respect for the law compared to illegals?

craigr wrote: The entire idea of mass and free immigration is broken. California is the endgame for open borders policies. Open border theorists should take a hard look and decide whether California is what they want, because that's what they're going to get.

California is the endgame for the welfare state.

Pointedstick wrote:
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but implementability matters. The most beautiful, theoretically correct idea in the world isn't worth a hill of beans if it can't be implemented, which in politics means that it's supported by a majority or an extremely passionate, well-organized, well-funded, politically-active, and sizable minority. Given that libertarians are nowhere near a majority and as a minority are terribly organized and bad at politics, libertarian ideas live or die by their support among non-libertarians; for example, gun rights is a libertarian position that is winning because of Republican support, and likewise with drug legalization and Democratic support.

Politics is inherently a numbers game. The surprising truth is that securing the border is actually a very popular position that has been repressed by both R and D party elites. Here's some evidence:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... conundrum/

Two other elements - stricter border control and more visas for highly skilled workers - win broader backing, from 80 and 72 percent, respectively.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... e-reduced/

Majorities of Republicans (67 percent) and independents (53 percent) as well as a plurality of Democrats (47 percent) want to decrease legal immigration.

Still, the poll finds 60 percent of voters think it is not strict enough, and another 68 percent want new border security measures to be completed before changes to immigration policies. 


http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illin ... order.html

The latest Rasmussen poll finds that 82% of American Adults think it is important to secure the border to prevent future illegal immigration, with 60% who say it is Very Important.

A position that is supported by such an overwhelming majority can only be denied for so long, and Trump is tapping into the anger caused by this elite repression of such a popular position. You can't deny the majority for long in a representative government, especially on an issue that people feel very strongly about, like border control.

And on a practical level, admitting a lot of new poor people and refugees isn't going to do much to bolster support for ending welfare. Refugees and poor people are not and can not be libertarian. They are too low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs to even begin to appreciate the benefits of freedom. Notice how libertarians tend to be wealthy, highly educated, male, from a European background, and interested in esoteric technical matters? It's really not a coincidence. Demographically speaking, the fewer members of the population who resemble that, the worse libertarianism is gonna do.

Pointedstick,

I disagree with your entire post.  But rather than picking it all apart, I'll just say this:  Secure borders according to you has all the ingredients to become an eventuality in the United States.  If so, congratulations on your victory!

I love the arguments that even though government action A, intended for some purpose, has caused a problem, we can't stop A, so we need another government action B to counteract it.

Harry Browne pointed out why A could not achieve its original purpose, namely that it relied on force, which always has unintended negative consequences. He also pointed out that, for exactly the same reason, B also cannot achieve its stated goal of fixing the problems caused by A.

Thus, calling for government action to fix the problems caused by previous government action is hopeless. The only possible way to fix the problems caused by government action is for the government to stop doing what caused the problem in the first place, namely A.

In the current discussion, A is the welfare state and B is "secure borders". B will never, and can never, fix the problems caused by A, but will merely add further problems. The only possible solution is to repeal the welfare state.

To those who say "that can't happen", the response is simply "then the problem will never be solved". If you have a problem that has a solution, and you rule out that solution, you are giving up.

Libertarian666 wrote: I love the arguments that even though government action A, intended for some purpose, has caused a problem, we can't stop A, so we need another government action B to counteract it.

Harry Browne pointed out why A could not achieve its original purpose, namely that it relied on force, which always has unintended negative consequences. He also pointed out that, for exactly the same reason, B also cannot achieve its stated goal of fixing the problems caused by A.

Thus, calling for government action to fix the problems caused by previous government action is hopeless. The only possible way to fix the problems caused by government action is for the government to stop doing what caused the problem in the first place, namely A.

In the current discussion, A is the welfare state and B is "secure borders". B will never, and can never, fix the problems caused by A, but will merely add further problems. The only possible solution is to repeal the welfare state.

To those who say "that can't happen", the response is simply "then the problem will never be solved". If you have a problem that has a solution, and you rule out that solution, you are giving up.

I was hoping you'd chime in, Libertarian666 

Was listening to the news last night and everyone was talking about Trump's plan for mass deportations. And everyone was saying, of course, that it would be impossible, cost too much money, take too long, etc, etc.

And I think this explains the appeal of Donald Trump.  All you hear is Can't keep 'em out, Can't get rid of 'em once they get here, Can't do anything about birthright citizenship, Can't deny them benefits, Can't, Can't Can't. I think people are getting pretty sick and tired of hearing this. Time for some "Yes, we can"on immigration, or, "Si Si Puede", if you prefer.

Libertarian666 wrote: To those who say "that can't happen", the response is simply "then the problem will never be solved". If you have a problem that has a solution, and you rule out that solution, you are giving up.

It's quite a Dilbertian conundrum, really. I'm sure the members who are or have been engineers will recognize the situation: you're forced to rely on a huge, bloated, poorly-functioning technical system at work. Management insists on keeping it, so you can't replace it with something better or even nothing at all. Management also insists you keep the dumbest features and the worst hacks that make life difficult and cause it to crash a lot. When you work on the parts you're allowed to change, fixing one bug exposes or creates another, or more.

What to do?

Well, you could quit in protest. That would be leaving the country. You could accept the status quo and try to be zen about it. That would be the How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World approach. And finally, you could try your best to work on fixing it even though you know it will never be all that good. Because parts of it do work; not that well, maybe, but they do work, and you can make them better or create new pieces that work. The system may be fatally flawed and impossible to fundamentally reform, and you may even intimately understand this, but you can also understand that it can be improved a little bit.

craigr wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:In the current discussion, A is the welfare state and B is "secure borders". B will never, and can never, fix the problems caused by A, but will merely add further problems. The only possible solution is to repeal the welfare state.

We had stronger border controls well before a massive welfare state. The destruction of the borders (1965 immigration act) coincided with the largest expansion of welfare in U.S. history (Great Society programs). Prior to that there was multiple decade immigration moratorium and welfare as we know it today did not exist.

The reality is I'd much rather live in a social welfare state country like New Zealand with tight border controls than an open borders nation. A welfare state is not a great idea, but if the people have a high social trust culture that is maintained by keeping out troublemakers and abusers it can work for a while. More importantly though, when the country does have problems a unified culture can work through it and right the ship.

If however the people are displaced by others pouring in that don't have the same qualities through mass immigration and open borders, and disagree on other core issues on how to run things, then the entire idea collapses.

The above point is the source of the disagreement with Libertarian open borders arguments. Libertarians think all people and cultures are equal and interchangeable. But the reality of multiculturalism and human nature shows otherwise.

There is a reason why nations of the planet sprang into existence with borders between them. It wasn't an accident. It also isn't an accident that wars are fought over borders and ideas. Humans are not going to simply tear down their borders and mix together without conflict. If that was going to happen, it would have done so already over the many thousands of years of recorded human history we have. Yet, here we are still with borders and still with conflict over them all over the planet.

Open borders is not going to work. I don't even know why the point is debated because it's plainly obvious what a horrible idea it is. In fact, it's a far worse idea than any government welfare program I've ever come across.

If I use the metaphor of my house is representative of the USA, I would offer these comments:

* I lock my doors to keep unwanted persons out of my home, meaning the residence that I pay to have, stocked with food, my family, and my possessions.  I would defend my home and its contents if necessary to keep the malcontents and the evil doers out.

* My audlt children have not, as of yet, become freeloaders expecting to "feed" from the things inside my house without giving something in return.

* I do not intend to have "open borders" (i.e. unlock my doors to welcome in anyone who wishes to freeload) at my house.

* If I found a freeloader in my home, I would export him/her immediately.  I would reprimand whomever let them in and make sure they did not do it again, or secure the flaw that enabled them to gain entry if no one let them in on purpose.

* I really do not see the macro version being much different than my micro version - thus, open borders are stupid in the extreme. 

... M

If you took every illegal out of this country, you'd still have the military industrial complex and police state striving to exist, and far-too many "freedom loving," "law-abiding" Americans would fall right in line as they have been for decades.

However, I still am sort of begrudgingly right wingish on this issue. I'm for a fence and tightening up legal immigration with a few exceptions. We have a government. It's not going away. Neither is the welfare state. One of their main jobs is to maintain a standard for citizenship and resodency.

But blaming the police state and national security state perma-war on illegal immigration is a joke. "Freedom-loving," "law-abiding" American citizens are to blame for that. "Real America" isn't nearly as American as it thinks it is, and if we are going to speak honestly here, let's at least not let them off the hook on it, and probably even call them out more often. Just because they buy auto insurance and fly an American flag in their yard doesn't mean they are a smaller threat to freedom than a migrant worker. 

craigr wrote: From: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-14-25-14

Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the government should have broad surveillance powers of Americans and private technology firms should cooperate better with intelligence agencies to help combat "evildoers."

Those damn Swedish immigrants! At it again with their evildoing!

Separately, Bush told CBS News that he disagreed with rival Donald Trump on the birthright of children born in the United States to parents who are immigrants living in the country illegally.

"That's a constitutional right," Bush said. "Mr. Trump can say he's for this because people are frustrated that it's abused. We ought to fix the problem rather than take away rights that are constitutionally endowed."

Wait a second, didn't he just spend the first part lecturing everyone on how mass surveillance is not a violation of Constitutional protections, but ending anchor babies from illegals can't be done because it's a sacred Constitutional right?

What a putz.

�Jeb! Bush is the embodiment of open border immigration policy. Punish citizens while putting foreign nationals first.

While Bush is dead wrong on surveillance, IMO, the constitution is pretty clear on so-called "anchor babies."  If you're born here, you are a citizen. Not much wiggle room on that language in he 14th amendment. If we don't like it, I suggest we change the Constitution.

Stewardship wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I love the arguments that even though government action A, intended for some purpose, has caused a problem, we can't stop A, so we need another government action B to counteract it.

Harry Browne pointed out why A could not achieve its original purpose, namely that it relied on force, which always has unintended negative consequences. He also pointed out that, for exactly the same reason, B also cannot achieve its stated goal of fixing the problems caused by A.

Thus, calling for government action to fix the problems caused by previous government action is hopeless. The only possible way to fix the problems caused by government action is for the government to stop doing what caused the problem in the first place, namely A.

In the current discussion, A is the welfare state and B is "secure borders". B will never, and can never, fix the problems caused by A, but will merely add further problems. The only possible solution is to repeal the welfare state.

To those who say "that can't happen", the response is simply "then the problem will never be solved". If you have a problem that has a solution, and you rule out that solution, you are giving up.

I was hoping you'd chime in, Libertarian666 

You're welcome!

Libertarian666 wrote:

Stewardship wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I love the arguments that even though government action A, intended for some purpose, has caused a problem, we can't stop A, so we need another government action B to counteract it.

Harry Browne pointed out why A could not achieve its original purpose, namely that it relied on force, which always has unintended negative consequences. He also pointed out that, for exactly the same reason, B also cannot achieve its stated goal of fixing the problems caused by A.

Thus, calling for government action to fix the problems caused by previous government action is hopeless. The only possible way to fix the problems caused by government action is for the government to stop doing what caused the problem in the first place, namely A.

In the current discussion, A is the welfare state and B is "secure borders". B will never, and can never, fix the problems caused by A, but will merely add further problems. The only possible solution is to repeal the welfare state.

To those who say "that can't happen", the response is simply "then the problem will never be solved". If you have a problem that has a solution, and you rule out that solution, you are giving up.

I was hoping you'd chime in, Libertarian666 

You're welcome!

In the absence of perfect solutions, do you guys ever think perhaps there are better solutions? 

Perhaps you don't like the fact that government runs the transportation system, but once the roads are built, do you advocate that the government not paint lines and post signs so they spend less money?