Love the idea.
..and the cat.
UT = University of Texas.
Well, you folks had better beware of blowback, as Ron Paul says, for your adventurist policy of disturbing the world view of other people.
Godspeed.
UT = of Texas
Not where I from
I want that bush guy to respond… he was all uppidy about immigrants lowering the quality of life for americans, so I gave him a ton of citations showing growing real wages and working conditions during mass immigration in the early part of US history, then accused him of a lump of labor fallacy and gave a layman’s version of say’s law.
I want to know what they have to say to this.
Lol @ gabriel.
I don’t follow.
Do any of them NOT subscribe to the lump of labor fallacy?
Do any of them like, continue posting more than once or twice? I mean theoreticaly its cus we beat them back so good but come on…
Who is POTA? Nice post 
I’m wondering the same thing. If he’s doing a reductio, he’s gotten so into his anti-immigrant character that it’s hard to tell whether or not he’s serious.
Aquila??
I believe it was you who started the hannity thing about immigration??
Do you ( or any libertarian) believe that free movement of labor is possbile with our current welfare state?? obviously the answer is no… and I hope you mention that while you are trying to change peoples minds on unmanaged immigration.
the answer is NEVER more government intervention, more of a police state, more taxation.
Let me rephrase your question and throw it back at you: Do you believe the current welfare state is possible with the free movement of labor? In other words, if labor was allowed to move freely across borders, how long would the welfare state last?
And yes, we have made it quite clear that the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch.
This is a very interesting question, but it is actually fairly simple to address.
The existence welfare requires a productive sucessful economy. The absence of money = the absence of ones ability to provide welfare.
To that end, welfare states would exist but they would be temproary following traditional free market principles. As the welfare destroyed the state in which it is set up, a movement of wealth out of that environment would take place. This is assuming that wealth can still move and that there is an place where it can be freely enjoyed. Of coruse, the absence of a safehaven for wealth is exactly what internationalists desire so as to limit this from taking place.
To directly answer the question, the welfare state would last only as long as the ability to provide it woudl allow. Wefare mentality is a disease of the subjectivist. The only cure for this disease is hard reality, one absence of the ability to provide welfare. Of course the subjectivist will blame other factors that lead tot he downfall of their social engineering and the cycle will repeat itself generations later.
IMO this demonstrates not only that the welfare state cannot survive free immigration, but neither can democracy itself.
I hear so many decry amnesty, saying that giving poor immigrants the franchise will ensure the election of progressive, redistributionist governments. However, the bigger issue that is always missed is the injustice that ANY group can impose its will on another group merely because it consists of a large number of people.
The immigration issue is really showing how democracy creates antagonism among demographics as they scramble to be first in line to bring the power of the state to bear against eachother.
The issue with immigration is much simpler than that. allowing millions of uneducated lower class people into a system that already pays heavily for that class is asking for economic ruin. While the existence of a true welfare state might be temporary, that doesnt excuse the destruction that took place during the enterveening periods.
A nation can’t exist without national borders. This goes for labor migration or the migration of military assets from other coutrnies. I hardly think many people would support iran setting up a military base in Americas heartland, but to be honest, that sort of action woudl be easier to contain than millions of undocumented, uneducated laborers.
I work in an industry that relies heavily on migrant and sometimes illegal labor so I understand the situation better than most. But you have to balance short/lon term gain/harm.
That being said, I think that the U.S. will devolve into a welfare state wether we have free movement of labor or not, it will just be faster if we do.
The Late Andrew Ryan:
those who labor without following the demands of the state are in a position to undercut those who do follow its rules
Sounds kind of like a State-sponsored labor cartel, but the State’s not powerful enough to adequately enforce it, so some individuals, including some “illegal immigrants”, are able to undermine it.
The Hannitized seem incapable of distinguishing these folks:
from these folks:
or these:
Well, they both have nice hats!
And Joe, I can’t see the picture you put up.
I’m presuming that “Ridin’ Dirty” is someone playing Devil’s Advocate? It reads very similar to the comments by Rettoper here: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/has-anarchism-been-disproved-by-history-a-debate-between-rettoper-and-lilburne/13335
I’m having a lot of fun reading the thread–thanks to Aquila and our Reductio artist
“Ridin’ Dirty” lives up to his name. He does fight dirty.
MarkyS’ keeps pointing out that illegal immigrants are unfairly advantaged by their under-the-table status. He seems to overlook the fact that their under-the-table status stems from the government having made them that way. His argument is hardly an objection to free immigration since this policy would eliminate all illegal immigrants and therefore any unfair advantaged derived from their illegal status (the “advantage” being their willingness to accept lower wages).
I think he resorts to this argument because he knows the truth: Mexicans are willing to work for lower wages than Americans regardless of their status (legal or illegal). He has the same frustrations as early twentieth century unionists who tried to restrict immigration. They just can’t stand it when foreigners have the gall to work hard and well for lower pay than them. It is a combination of xenophobia and envy that leads to the endorsement of protectionism.