Now first I want to define what I mean by "Open" borders. I don't think that everyone should just be able to stream into the country unscreened. That would be disastrous. No, I think what should be meant by open borders is that the government screens for criminals, spies, terrorists, and diseases. If someone checks out okay, then they should be allowed in.
Now, there are several arguments I am aware of which people use to attack this position. First I would like to dismiss concerns about shifts in primary language or ethnic demographics as purely racist. Over time, populations naturally shift their genetic and linguistic composition. Opposition to immigration on purely linguistic or demographic grounds is therefore unwarranted and clearly motivated by a philosophical perspective which discriminates between human beings on non-essential characteristics. These arguments are not even worthy of attention and so this is all I will say of them.
The other two primary arguments against open borders, as I have already defined them, concern either the economic or the environmental impact of population increase. First I would like to address the environmental argument. Then I will address the economic one.
Environmentalists proclaim that we all have an environmental "footprint" and that expansion in population is destructive of the environment. Well, first of all, every single activity that human beings pursue is bound to have some effect on our environment--especially since the only way that human beings can survive is to alter their environment. Environmentalists also conveniently ignore the reality of the scientific advancements that have enabled us to double our population in the last 100 years while the forest population has remained relatively stable.
No, I think that the argument from environmental impact is largely geared at a hatred for humanity, for the desire to eliminate humanity from the face of the earth and leave a pristine, consciousless jungle in our wake. The "irreversible" disaster scenarios promulgated by activists are yet to be substantially verified by science. And even were they to be substantiated, handicapping our ability to deal with them (i.e. restricting the capital development of the sciences to refine our manufacturing technology) is not the road to finding viable solutions. But that's neither here nor there.
Ultimately, the rebuttal to the environmental argument is that they claim that living people are the problem and offer no solution except to hobble our ability to cope with environmental problems by limiting economic growth and in some cases even suggesting such fascist manuevers as forced birth control of the populace. Wouldn't that be pretty? In short, the fear of the environmental impact of population explosion due to immigration is a non-starter by scientific standards. And by economic standards it has even less weight as I will explain next.
(For a more in depth discussion of the environmental argument please see this blog entry by Curtis Edward Clark here: http://freeassemblage.blogspot.com/2009/01/environmental-footprints-and-starving.html)
(And I also recommend reading this op-ed by physics Ph.D. Keith Lockitch which explains the moral implications of environmentalism here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22271&news_iv_ctrl=1021)
So, we are left with asking what would be the economic impact of massive immigration or population growth? Under our current system...disaster. But the reason for that disaster is the presence of entitlement programs, safety nets, public education, welfare, unemployment, minimum wages, medicare, public health insurance, food stamps, etc. In a laissez-faire capitalist system, there would be no need to screen immigrants for their economic sustainability. If they couldn't sustain themselves in America, then their options would be to go home or die. Not by violence, but from starvation. That's what happens when a population exceeds its resources.
But long before that would happen one of two things would happen.
1. The economy would adjust to accomodate the larger work force, resulting in more jobs, higher productivity, and lower prices.
2. Or, the economy would not be able to accomodate these workers, salaries would drop to unacceptable levels, and we would see reverse migration.
Although I think this second is extremely unlikely. The main reason is that in a free market, prices (especially wages for labor) are determined by supply and demand. A high demand for work may drive down wages, but it also drives down costs and thus prices for product, which effectively compensates for the numerically lower wage.
Another misconception is the idea of a limited amount of jobs or a set load which the economy can support. These concepts only enter into the picture once the economy is constrained by government coercion. If the marketplace is free to allow people and goods to flow without the threat of physical violence (government or individual), then people without jobs could start their own business with little resistance. With the increase in population would also come increased opportunities, an increased customer base with specific needs. In short, the increase in population would increase the economic potential of the nation, not diminish it. With the increase in economic activity would come more jobs, more money, lower prices, and a higher standard of living for all.
A side benefit would be, as Yaron Brook points out in the video below, that if we allow everyone except spies, criminals, terrorists, and the diseased into the country freely, then that means we only have to patrol the border for spies, criminals, terrorists, and the diseased. And as he aptly points out, those are people who we could shoot with moral impunity if they were discovered sneaking in, because those would be the ONLY kind of people sneaking in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib3nVuw2RQU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF92vXogERE
As it is, the influx of immigration, both legal and illegal, is motivated by the comparative poverty of other nations around the world. These people want to come to have a better life. Their motivations are largely noble. The only thing which gives us cause to fear them, are the very social institutions which we have put in place to steal from some, to secure the unearned for others, WITHIN the country. If we are aware of the unsustainability of those programs and the social cost of such, then we should be directing our energies at undoing those programs and not in further punishing people for exercising their American rights to decide their own terms of employment. The government has no right to dictate to any person who they should be able to hire. Period. And if it weren't for the minimum wage, which makes it impossible for agricultural concerns to hire citizens for the wages that the market demands for their products, they wouldn't have to face the choice of hiring illiegals or going out of business.
Ultimately, the immigration issue is yet another social ill which has been created by our government's intervention in people's lives. This and so many others will not disappear until the government is properly constrained into it's appropriate social role, the preservation of the individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Everything else, as they say, is up to you. You should have the freedom to decide who you want to hire. You should have the freedom to decide how much you want to pay them. People seeking employment should have the freedom to decide who they want to work for. People seeking employment should have the freedom to decide how much they are willing to work for. The government has no place in manipulating the job market or restraining economic growth. Economic growth is simply a function of all the activities that people pursue to live their lives and make those lives better. The more the merrier. The larger the economy, the more profit to be made by all.
But we are not free, and so we have these "conundrums". We must focus our energy on being free, on reclaiming our freedom. Being sidetracked with tertiary issues only divides us and makes it easier to continue the systematic unraveling of the American ideal.
Translator
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Dr. Anne Wortham: Black Victimhood vs. Black Individual Responsibility
Well, with Obama sworn in and gearing up to charge headlong into a socialist rampage that will flush the remaining fractured remnants of our economy down the toilet, it seems that the issue of the day still seems to be race. I've recently been getting some negative feedback for supporting Anne Wortham a while back in this post here.
Anyways, it inspired me to look up more of her work, and as since the video I originally linked to was removed, I was really glad to find this article posted on the internet. It says much better than I ever could exactly what is wrong with the culture of victimization that has infected what the civil rights movement has unfortunately become.
It can be read at this link here: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin092.pdf
Also, if you're interested, here is a very well written op-ed she wrote about Lord Obama:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/wortham1.html
Best premises,
American Antitheist
Anyways, it inspired me to look up more of her work, and as since the video I originally linked to was removed, I was really glad to find this article posted on the internet. It says much better than I ever could exactly what is wrong with the culture of victimization that has infected what the civil rights movement has unfortunately become.
It can be read at this link here: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin092.pdf
Also, if you're interested, here is a very well written op-ed she wrote about Lord Obama:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/wortham1.html
Best premises,
American Antitheist
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Will Bigotry Never Cease?
Here's a little gem I found over at Townhall.com today. I encourage you as always to check it out for yourself:
Americans Are Right To Resist An Atheist As President
By Michael Medved
To start with, what a wonderfully smug title. I propose a little thought experiment to reveal the true nature of this new attempt to paint fascism in the colors of civility. Let us take all the references to "atheists" and change them to "black". And let us change all the references to other religions to that of race. If it helps just imagine that this editorial was published about 50 years ago. Let us do this and see what it makes you feel like. Then you will see just how slimy Medved is. My alterations will be in red ink. My comments are in italics.
Let's start with the title, "Americans Are Right to Resist a Black President".
"Despite the recent spate of major bestsellers touting the virtues of blacks, polls show consistent, stubborn reluctance on the part of the public to cast their votes for a presidential candidate who is of black heritage."
...
"Of course, some civil rights activists respond to this state of affairs by decrying the American people as backward and benighted, while dismissing our politicians as hypocritical, falsely egalitarian blowhards. These activists point to the huge popularity of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X among others as evidence that the public resistance to racial equality and black candidates may be overstated."
...
"Actually, there’s little chance that blacks will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the superiority of the white race. A black may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a black as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.
Hollowness and Hypocrisy at State Occasions. As Constitutional scholars all point out, the Presidency uniquely combines the two functions of head of government (like the British Prime Minister) and head of state (like the Queen of England). POTUS not only appoints cabinet members and shapes foreign policy and delivers addresses to Congress, but also presides over solemn and ceremonial occasions. Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones. For instance, try to imagine a black president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the slave traders who enslaved his forefathers?"
...
"Skeptics may suggest that a black president would give the nation the long-overdue chance to purge itself of these inappropriate racist trappings in our governmental and public processes, but truly overwhelming majorities cherish such traditions. The notion of dropping segregation to avoid discomfort for a single individual amounts to a formula for a disastrously unpopular presidency."
I could go on, but seriously, why bother with this nonsense? And truthfully the task of rephrasing this malice in terms of race makes me uncomfortable. But the point is obvious isn't it? The so-called defenders of religious freedom are once again trying to make the cloak of free-speech into a cloak of invulnerability where they can spit malice with impunity and everyone can be expected to jump on the band wagon saying, "Well, of course he has a point..."
Shut this fascist down! Not with violence and not with law. Don't ban him, or cut him out of the spotlight. Instead push him into the merciless light of full attention. Comment, blog, e-mail, respond, protest. Get his name and this vicious attack out into the open. Evil only breeds when it has shadows to hide in.
Americans Are Right To Resist An Atheist As President
By Michael Medved
To start with, what a wonderfully smug title. I propose a little thought experiment to reveal the true nature of this new attempt to paint fascism in the colors of civility. Let us take all the references to "atheists" and change them to "black". And let us change all the references to other religions to that of race. If it helps just imagine that this editorial was published about 50 years ago. Let us do this and see what it makes you feel like. Then you will see just how slimy Medved is. My alterations will be in red ink. My comments are in italics.
Let's start with the title, "Americans Are Right to Resist a Black President".
"Despite the recent spate of major bestsellers touting the virtues of blacks, polls show consistent, stubborn reluctance on the part of the public to cast their votes for a presidential candidate who is of black heritage."
...
"Of course, some civil rights activists respond to this state of affairs by decrying the American people as backward and benighted, while dismissing our politicians as hypocritical, falsely egalitarian blowhards. These activists point to the huge popularity of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X among others as evidence that the public resistance to racial equality and black candidates may be overstated."
...
"Actually, there’s little chance that blacks will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the superiority of the white race. A black may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a black as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.
Hollowness and Hypocrisy at State Occasions. As Constitutional scholars all point out, the Presidency uniquely combines the two functions of head of government (like the British Prime Minister) and head of state (like the Queen of England). POTUS not only appoints cabinet members and shapes foreign policy and delivers addresses to Congress, but also presides over solemn and ceremonial occasions. Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones. For instance, try to imagine a black president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the slave traders who enslaved his forefathers?"
...
"Skeptics may suggest that a black president would give the nation the long-overdue chance to purge itself of these inappropriate racist trappings in our governmental and public processes, but truly overwhelming majorities cherish such traditions. The notion of dropping segregation to avoid discomfort for a single individual amounts to a formula for a disastrously unpopular presidency."
I could go on, but seriously, why bother with this nonsense? And truthfully the task of rephrasing this malice in terms of race makes me uncomfortable. But the point is obvious isn't it? The so-called defenders of religious freedom are once again trying to make the cloak of free-speech into a cloak of invulnerability where they can spit malice with impunity and everyone can be expected to jump on the band wagon saying, "Well, of course he has a point..."
Shut this fascist down! Not with violence and not with law. Don't ban him, or cut him out of the spotlight. Instead push him into the merciless light of full attention. Comment, blog, e-mail, respond, protest. Get his name and this vicious attack out into the open. Evil only breeds when it has shadows to hide in.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The Cult of God and Ethical Racism
This video made me furious. And the reason isn't because an atheist was discriminated against. What enraged me was that the community was so complicitous that they bound together to cover over any investigation into the charges made. How can you investigate discrimination when the investigators are all bigots? If the reason for my candor here seems unclear, I challenge you to do a little thought experiment. Just imagine that instead of Oklahoma, this story was set in Alabama, and that instead of being excluded for being an atheist, she was being excluded for being black. Then, you would see how horribly unbalanced, how viciously skewed that system is. Religion leads to bigotry and those bigots need to be exposed for the vicious scum that they are. Do Nazis have the right to hate Jews and black people, of course they do. Do they have the right to preach that hatred in the schools and from official office? Hell, no!
Religion leads to cult-thinking. The group amasses and is confident in their moral superiority for no other reason than that god tells them so. Defending their "morality" is a matter of course. Anyone who does wickedness for god is forgiven because doing for god must be noble, mustn't it? It's disgusting. And it underscores how insidious the religious contamination of our infrastructure has become. We need to kick god out of school and out of government. If you live in Oklahoma, write your representatives and senators in Congress. Write the school board of Hardesty, Oklahoma. Challenge any such decisions in your own community. Challenge creationism. Challenge intelligent design. Challenge Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And speak up! Don't let their propaganda poison the world unanswered any longer. Your voices will help form the future. Get out there and fight! Run for office if you can. At least vote for reason if you can't.
Don't humor the madness thinking that well, the person spouting improbabilities is basically a "decent" person. If they had the opportunity and the influence they would have us all committed to that same madness. Wherever people of faith hold sway they create places like Hardesty or Saudi Arabia or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (if you include religious-like faith in society as a god). A society based on reason is a free society. A society based on god is totalitarian by definition. Why? Well, the only writer I've ever seen suggest a "Republic of Heaven" is Philip Pullman author of The Golden Compass, but he doesn't believe in god now does he? No, for all intensive purposes, the "army of the faithful" fights for the "Kingdom of Heaven". Well, we have no need of kings in America. Don't let them trick you into apathy or inaction. What religion represents in unabashed evil. And the horror is that it is an evil that smiles and promises you pretty things while asking you to sacrifice your soul and your mind to an impenetrable fog of fantasy and faith.
Don't be fooled! And don't give up! What we need now more than ever are rational leaders, men and women who will stand up to the challenges posed by wide-scale religious indoctrination in our communities and fight to keep those powers in check. Apathy will only hasten their victory. Action, even just at arm's reach, may be enough to tip the scales the other way. Don't let us be sucked into another dark age without a fight. We can't afford to risk the passive loss of all we have gained for reason in the last several centuries simply out of a misguided dedication to the tolerance of bad ideas. Anyways, check it out for yourselves. I hope it angers you as much as it did me. Thank you, Nicole for not giving in. You're an inspiration to us all.
And here is some info that could be useful for raising a fuss:
Hardesty School Board
P.O. Box 129
Hardesty, OK 73944
Texas County
PH: (580) 888-4258
District 3 Congressional Representative Frank Lucas
Senator Jim Inhofe (website was unreadable when I tried)
DC Office:
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3603
1924 South Utica Avenue, Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104-6511
Phone: 918-748-5111
Fax: 918-748-5119
Senator Tom Coburn
DC Office:
3310 Mid-Continent Tower
401 South Boston
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: 918-581-7651
Fax: 918-581-7195
Religion leads to cult-thinking. The group amasses and is confident in their moral superiority for no other reason than that god tells them so. Defending their "morality" is a matter of course. Anyone who does wickedness for god is forgiven because doing for god must be noble, mustn't it? It's disgusting. And it underscores how insidious the religious contamination of our infrastructure has become. We need to kick god out of school and out of government. If you live in Oklahoma, write your representatives and senators in Congress. Write the school board of Hardesty, Oklahoma. Challenge any such decisions in your own community. Challenge creationism. Challenge intelligent design. Challenge Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And speak up! Don't let their propaganda poison the world unanswered any longer. Your voices will help form the future. Get out there and fight! Run for office if you can. At least vote for reason if you can't.
Don't humor the madness thinking that well, the person spouting improbabilities is basically a "decent" person. If they had the opportunity and the influence they would have us all committed to that same madness. Wherever people of faith hold sway they create places like Hardesty or Saudi Arabia or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia (if you include religious-like faith in society as a god). A society based on reason is a free society. A society based on god is totalitarian by definition. Why? Well, the only writer I've ever seen suggest a "Republic of Heaven" is Philip Pullman author of The Golden Compass, but he doesn't believe in god now does he? No, for all intensive purposes, the "army of the faithful" fights for the "Kingdom of Heaven". Well, we have no need of kings in America. Don't let them trick you into apathy or inaction. What religion represents in unabashed evil. And the horror is that it is an evil that smiles and promises you pretty things while asking you to sacrifice your soul and your mind to an impenetrable fog of fantasy and faith.
Don't be fooled! And don't give up! What we need now more than ever are rational leaders, men and women who will stand up to the challenges posed by wide-scale religious indoctrination in our communities and fight to keep those powers in check. Apathy will only hasten their victory. Action, even just at arm's reach, may be enough to tip the scales the other way. Don't let us be sucked into another dark age without a fight. We can't afford to risk the passive loss of all we have gained for reason in the last several centuries simply out of a misguided dedication to the tolerance of bad ideas. Anyways, check it out for yourselves. I hope it angers you as much as it did me. Thank you, Nicole for not giving in. You're an inspiration to us all.
And here is some info that could be useful for raising a fuss:
Hardesty School Board
P.O. Box 129
Hardesty, OK 73944
Texas County
PH: (580) 888-4258
District 3 Congressional Representative Frank Lucas
Senator Jim Inhofe (website was unreadable when I tried)
DC Office:
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3603
Phone: 202-224-4721
Fax: 202-228-0380
Web Email
Website
District Office - Enid:
302 North Independence, Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
Phone: 580-234-5105
Fax: 580-234-5094
District Office - McAlester:
215 East Choctaw, Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
Phone: 918-426-0933
Fax: 918-426-0935
District Office - Oklahoma City:
1900 Northwest Expressway, Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Phone: 405-608-4381
Fax: 405-608-4120
1924 South Utica Avenue, Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104-6511
Phone: 918-748-5111
Fax: 918-748-5119
Senator Tom Coburn
DC Office:
172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-3603
Phone: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
Web Email
Website
District Office- Lawton:
711 Southwest D Avenue, Suite 202
Lawton, OK 73501
Phone: 580-357-9878
Fax: 580-355-3560
District Office- Oklahoma City:
2250 West Modelle Street, Suite C
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: 405-231-4941
Fax: 405-231-5051
3310 Mid-Continent Tower
401 South Boston
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: 918-581-7651
Fax: 918-581-7195
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
