Then he came to question libertarianism. Closed borders are fundamentally opposed to libertarianism. You can't get around that without meaninglessly rejecting and changing the definitions of basic words. Shove that up your ass.
Need more workers?
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
The question would be can you make a libertarian case against open borders. Which you of course can. I agree you can’t make a libertarian case for entirely closed borders, which is admittedly a case of my initial post being imprecise.
At root it would be this:
The right of one person necessarily entails the obligation of another person or persons. If you have a right to life, I have the obligation not to kill you; if you have a right of free speech, I have the obligation not to stop you from speaking. The first half would be pointless without the second. If any given person has the right to enter the United States, who is it that has the obligation? Every person in the United States? Or only the person whose property the immigrant wishes to inhabit? Or perhaps, no one person in the United States, only the U.S. government, even if no individual in the U. S. wants him.
You're looking at it backwards and therefore missing the problem with your argument.
You are actually demanding an obligation from someone else - to not migrate to where you are. So you need to demonstrate you have some right that gives rise to that obligation.
Maybe you do, but it isn't rooted in any rational version of libertarianism.
You could easily couch that in property rights if you view the nation as the collective property of the citizens. Also the right to freedom of association as open borders are de facto forced integration.
Yeah, that's a real libertarian way of looking at things. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
I think you’re conflating anarchism and libertarianism. An open border is the end of the nation state. And even the most rabid libertarian doesn’t usually advocate against the idea of the nation state.
Second, you’re conflating the right to exit somewhere (I want to leave Venezuela and should be permitted to) with the right to enter (the U.S. must allow me in).
Surely a group of people having the right to exclude whoever they wish for whatever reason is a foundational Libertarian value?
Yeah, that's not surely foundational to any libertarian text I've ever read. If you don't want to associate with me, you certainly have a right to avoid me, but you have no right to prevent me from being wherever the f*ck I want to be.
There are stronger and weaker versions of libertarianism.
And to be fair, Googly included conservative cases too for closed borders. Surely you’ll agree there is a conservative case against open borders?
Of course, but is there a logically consistent version anywhere that argues for a right to turn immigrants away?
I’m not sure “a right” is the term they’d use here.
If you admit nation states are not logically forbidden to the libertarian, I think you have to admit they can consistently maintain an immigration policy.
I have to admit that I'm probably assuming nation-states are fundamentally inconsistent with libertarian ideology.
At the utopian level where the whole world is operating under the same libertarian system, it might be (like communism). In the near term/ real world, I think they would recognize the need for some current institutions and rules.
I thought Libertarianism was all about the individual above all else. Where does this group of people fit in?
A good libertarian view on immigration is the book below, illustrated by the creator of SMBC, Zach Weinersmith. It did not convert me, but it made me think and is far from weak on the issue.
It’s about the rights of the individual above all else. Including the right to freedom of association and within that the right to make decisions about membership in said group.
At the utopian level a group of property owners collectively deciding who they will and won’t allow to enter their large mass of adjacent properties, patrolling the borders and setting strict standards for entrance is fundamentally libertarian.
Sure, but that's not really a border as we're talking about.
The concept of a border for this discussion, I think, only really makes sense in the context of nations with differing forms of govt.
But yes, even now in American society, you can do what you're talking about--gated communities, condos buildings, etc.
Great news. The blue collar American worker is doing better. When you stop importing millions of slave laborers, wages actually do go up for the working class.
Yes. I’m headed to West Virginia to hire laid-off miners for my bitcoin operations.
My current workforce works 24/7 with no benefits but they suck…electrons.
I'm just happy the average American is making more money. As a Democrat, I assume you're thrilled that's happening as well, right? After all you're the party of the working man.
I no longer “identify” as a Dem. Far too embarrassing, sad, pathetic, stupid, frustrating, and absurd.
I find the whole immigration/economy/workforce issue complicated. I get repatriating illegals. At the same time we clearly need a workable and enforceable immigration law for our economy.
In other words, angry Trump is presumably doing good work with enforcement but intelligent Trump is MIA in terms of addressing our future economic needs.
We’re a nation of immigrants. If we weren’t Trump would still be Drumpf of the Dark Forest.
Few cliches as hollow, useless and devoid of context when discussing what a rational immigration policy looks like than “we are a nation of immigrants”.
It's not that complicated. There are just trade offs. If you import a bunch of cheap labor it's going to have negative impacts on working class Americans. It suppresses wages for them and increases costs in big tickets items like housing, healthcare, and education.
He is addressing our future economic needs. We don't need millions of more low skilled workers in an AI deflationary era. Especially, when we have a very large social safety net.
That sounds oversimplifying to me. I think there are a lot of jobs that foreign labor is willing to do that employers have trouble filling otherwise. There’s also a lot of jobs that aren’t low wage that employers have trouble finding qualified people for. Then there’s the problem that Rockport zebra talks about, which is finding workers who are actually reliable at all not some kind of drugged out or spoiled for some other reason type workers.
It's not that complicated. There are just trade offs. If you import a bunch of cheap labor it's going to have negative impacts on working class Americans. It suppresses wages for them and increases costs in big tickets items like housing, healthcare, and education.
He is addressing our future economic needs. We don't need millions of more low skilled workers in an AI deflationary era. Especially, when we have a very large social safety net.
The main problem that I see in terms of foreign illegal labor, coming across and really taking work away is all these entrepreneurs, such as construction, gardening, plumbing, and so forth. Such workers were actually entrepreneurs come in and are willing to work at cut rate prices, which of course homeowners are more interested in taking and that creates Serious competitive problems.
On our side of the border, I think we have some serious issues that we just aren’t facing including Trump. Number one, people just aren’t trained well enough for the type of jobs that we have to offer. At least not in high enough numbers. Number two, Too many people are messed up with pharmaceuticals or street drugs or whatever and just aren’t very employable. Three, too many people somehow gone onto the doll and aren’t interested in getting back into the workforce. Nothing Trump is doing is gonna solve that problem. That requires I don’t know what sort of solution, but they have to be gotten off the doll and back into the labor force.
Anyway, that’s why I see it’s more complicated than you’re making it out to me. You can lead people to work, but you can’t force them to work. You can lead people to work, but you can’t make them able to work if they’re not able. And you can’t train them if they’re not willing to get trained.
I totally agree with that except I’m not sure it’s step one. Step one might be a plan to put these spoiled laborers to work. CCC.
This is where one of my long time pet peeves with the Democratic Party lies, and I’ve said this many a time. Liberals believe in science presumably and they care about poor people. Well, research has long shown that it doesn’t take more than a couple years or so out of work to neuter a person‘s willingness to work. Given that science, what can be more cruel and inhumane than to put someone on the dole longer than what science warns about?
Bleeding hearts, meet cruelty. Cruelty meet, bleeding hearts.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Exactly. That’s why I say step one is to create the wherewithal to put these people to work before taking them off the dole. Or more realistically, somehow weaning them off the dole and into the labor force.
It’s something that intelligent and able people have to create for these failed products of our civilization. Such people can’t pull themselves up by the boot traps alone. Not realistic.
Might work. A higher necessity level alone can shock people out of their metaphorical catatonia.
I long since stopped going to restaurants so I don’t have to worry about getting low-wage diseases…
The majority of those getting public assistance are already working, and those who aren't are mainly single parents. Child care and a living wage have to be part of the solution.
Public assistance artificially increases the cost of everything. Get the government involved with childcare…the cost of childcare goes up exponentially. Get the government involved in wages…the value of those dollars goes down exponentially. Get the government involved with loans for higher education…the cost of higher education goes up exponentially. Get the government involved in healthcare….the cost of healthcare goes up exponentially.
Why Are Prime-Age Adults Opting Out of Work?
(selected quotes)“At a time when the United States is struggling with labor shortages, nearly 20% of prime-age adults—approximately 24 million Americans aged 25-54 — are not working. The vast majority of these people, roughly 21 million, are not even looking for work and are therefore “out of the labor force.” Only three million prime-age adults are seeking work and so are “unemployed”.
“A recent BPC-Artemis Strategy Group poll found that personal health and caregiving responsibilities are significant barriers to work for prime-age adults, with 72% of prime-age adults who are out of the labor force citing one of these as the main reason they are not working.
“It is unsurprising that family caregiving is such an important barrier for prime-age adults not looking for work when 59%—an estimated 12 million people—are legal guardians of at least one child. This compares to just 41% of those who are looking for work.
“Our polling suggests that 35% of prime-age adults not looking for work —an estimated 7 million people—cite disability or serious illness as the main reason for not being employed.
All except single mothers with kids. And if they are found to be living with the father then they are cut off as well. I am for taking care of the truly mentally and physically handicapped in this state…that is very few that are now receiving benefits
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Looks like the Supreme Court has another case headed their way...
- Latest: GooglyMooglyWooglyBoogly
-
