iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

[godraz]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Simply stated I'd like a government that offers all the protection of it powers in defense of our natural, yet collectively acknowledged, individual rights and liberties (as enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- although it and our Constitution could use an update!), while also using it vast powers to oversee, check, and penalize any and all corruption, malfeasance, abuse within our public/civic realm by corporate and financial interests, and especially where these private interests interfere in, detract from, and subjugate government from fulfilling protection of the first order.

Ideally a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Incorporated interests are inherently unnatural, unfair, and greedy, and ever since we've allowed for incorporation charters to be inextinguishable (punishment by abolition, due to acts against the common good), as well the misbegotten right of "personhood" to stand, we now have a government of corporate/financial interests, for corporate/financial interests, and by corporate/financial interests.

And we certainly have the results to show for it.

[grapejelly]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Fining the crap out of people isn't Libertarian.

Libertarian means *not* using government coercion and compulsion.

And it's nonsensical to call for a government to use "its vast powers". That is authoritarianism.

Democracy is not Libertarian. It goes hand in hand with dictatorship and basically being forced to give up your assets in support of things you don't believe in. If you did believe in them, you would support them voluntarily but you don't.

I am rather surprised that even the super smart people here don't understand that the free market really works. People cannot imagine how we ever could get by without government meddling in everyone's business. It reflects an underlying lack of trust in free markets.

[jimmygu3]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

that about covers my position. capitalism is short term unfair, long term fair. government needs to keep the fight fair, enforce the rules, protect property rights and the commons. public health is part of the commons, although folks need incentives to stop bad health behavior... taxing cigs and alcohol.

This is a very enlightening thread. Who knew that Metalman has a heart and Grapejelly is a sho-nuf anarchist. Just when you think you know someone....

I don't claim to be a libertarian, but I largely agree with what WorldTraveler and Metalman said, and what I have read EJ saying in various posts. Goverment needs to do the big things, like building infrastructure and providing security and defense. It also needs to set clear rules and regulations for corporations, including putting a monetary price on activities that harm others, pollute the environment, or compromise our national goals or security, and then let the market sort out the best way to work within that framework.

Many libertarians I know personally have an unwavering faith in free markets. Regulation, taxes, and government is always bad, deregulation and privatization is always good. I consider myself more of a realist than these people. Pure, unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and corruption. Strong, smart government is needed to keep the game fair and foster competition.

Another thing I hear libertarians doing (I think this comes from the talk radio guys) is lumping homeless people and welfare moms in with the working poor, claiming that they're all leeches on the government teat. Fact is, millions of people in the US work their butts off making very little money, and if government programs like food stamps make their life a little easier, I think that's wonderful. It costs very little in the grand scheme of things.

I believe that nobody should get a handout for doing nothing. If you're a single mom with 4 kids, you shouldn't get a welfare check unless you are working full time like the rest of us. We should provide child care services to help make this possible. We'll even help you find a job. If you're collecting an unemployment check, you need to spend 8 hours a day looking for work, or taking classes that provide you with the skills to get a job. My libertarian friends would say that these ideas are liberal, proposing even more government programs, but I see it more as a 'tough love' approach that helps those who are trying to help themselves.

I believe in sound monetary policy and a balanced budget. This means taxing enough to cover spending, and progressive taxes are necessary. As Warren Buffett said, he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, because of capped payroll taxes, low capital gains tax rates, and tax shelters available only to the wealthy. A national sales tax or flat tax would be horribly regressive and would likely be riddled with loopholes (I know, the current system is, too). No matter how you play the shell game of the tax code, the same number of dollars need to come in. With a flat tax or sales tax more would come from the poor and less from the rich and I think that's wrong.

I think Social Security is a good program. The retirement age should be adjusted upward to ensure it is solvent in the future. For me, SS is a very small, low risk part of my retirement plan. If I screw everything up, it's a safety net to help me afford basic sustenance in my golden years. Because of that, I am more comfortable taking risks in my investments and in my career. I think this benefits our society and economy as a whole.

I think the government has no business telling you what you can and can't do in your personal life, provided that you are not harming others. I believe strongly in protecting the rights of minorities, and any discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, etc., can not be tolerated.

The idea of life with no government is a grim one, and I hope few share GJ's views. I was recently in a bicycling accident and some passersby called government-run 911 for me. The ambulance was there in 2 minutes and the paramedics immediately began giving me urgent care. If this had been in GJ's Mad Max world, I suppose I would have called around to all the private ambulance companies, negotiated a price and paid them on the spot with junk silver or something before they would have helped. Oh, and nobody robbed me blind or kidnapped or sold me into slavery because we have a strong government police force and judicial system...

OK, enough.

Jimmy

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Jimmy,

So what do you call the million or so families levered into homes they should never even have tried to afford?

And who are now going to be paying for the next 30 years with every last skinny nickel they make - right into the teeth of a house price depreciation storm?

True, there weren't any trans-Atlantic rides in crowded leaky ships, but these people have officially been cemented into a lower class life.

In fact, if the behavior manifesting in the urban 'low income' housing projects also manifests in the nearby suburban mortgage slave areas, life could be worse in a number of respects: a slave at least represented a capital asset. Sure, there were lots of abuses, but ultimately the slave was needed for production.

In the modern version, the slaves have to find their own food and shelter...and work.

[World Traveler]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Jimmygu3,

A good position paper. Sounds like the kind of country that would be a great place to live!

WT

[grapejelly]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

This is a very enlightening thread. Who knew that Metalman has a heart and Grapejelly is a sho-nuf anarchist. Just when you think you know someone....

I don't claim to be a libertarian, but I largely agree with what WorldTraveler and Metalman said, and what I have read EJ saying in various posts. Goverment needs to do the big things, like building infrastructure and providing security and defense. It also needs to set clear rules and regulations for corporations, including putting a monetary price on activities that harm others, pollute the environment, or compromise our national goals or security, and then let the market sort out the best way to work within that framework.

Many libertarians I know personally have an unwavering faith in free markets. Regulation, taxes, and government is always bad, deregulation and privatization is always good. I consider myself more of a realist than these people. Pure, unregulated capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies and corruption. Strong, smart government is needed to keep the game fair and foster competition.

Capitalism can't possibly lead to monopolies. Competition will always take place unless government favors one group over another.

Corruption -- that is a government problem. It is how people use the power of government to coerce and compel people, force them to do things they don't want to do.

Another thing I hear libertarians doing (I think this comes from the talk radio guys) is lumping homeless people and welfare moms in with the working poor, claiming that they're all leeches on the government teat. Fact is, millions of people in the US work their butts off making very little money, and if government programs like food stamps make their life a little easier, I think that's wonderful. It costs very little in the grand scheme of things.

The "talk radio guys" -- none of them I've ever heard is a Libertarian. They are neocons, often, but Libertarians? No.

If people work their butts off in the US and are poor, it is quite likely due to what the government has done to our money. The money that is ours is stolen from us and then used to fight wars in Iraq, and threaten every country in the world with US hegemony.

Let that money stay where it belongs, in each of our pockets, and there would be plenty for even the poorest person here.

I believe that nobody should get a handout for doing nothing. If you're a single mom with 4 kids, you shouldn't get a welfare check unless you are working full time like the rest of us.

If you are working full time, you will hopefully be earning a paycheck from an employer.

We should provide child care services to help make this possible. We'll even help you find a job. If you're collecting an unemployment check, you need to spend 8 hours a day looking for work, or taking classes that provide you with the skills to get a job. My libertarian friends would say that these ideas are liberal, proposing even more government programs, but I see it more as a 'tough love' approach that helps those who are trying to help themselves.

Just remove welfare completely. Remove warfare completely. Let us keep our money. There will be plenty of money for people to be comfortable and work and raise a family.

Again, I think you are confused between today's big government "conservatives" and a libertarian, freedom-loving force-hating point of view.

I believe in sound monetary policy and a balanced budget. This means taxing enough to cover spending, and progressive taxes are necessary.

No they aren't. Progressive taxes are grossly unfair. All taxes are theft.

As Warren Buffett said, he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, because of capped payroll taxes, low capital gains tax rates, and tax shelters available only to the wealthy.

It's easy for Warren Buffett to believe this. Taxes in the US are plenty high.

A national sales tax or flat tax would be horribly regressive and would likely be riddled with loopholes (I know, the current system is, too). No matter how you play the shell game of the tax code, the same number of dollars need to come in. With a flat tax or sales tax more would come from the poor and less from the rich and I think that's wrong.

There shouldn't be any taxes. Let voluntary associations take care of things. Enough "public goods" and enough taxation.

I think Social Security is a good program. The retirement age should be adjusted upward to ensure it is solvent in the future. For me, SS is a very small, low risk part of my retirement plan. If I screw everything up, it's a safety net to help me afford basic sustenance in my golden years. Because of that, I am more comfortable taking risks in my investments and in my career. I think this benefits our society and economy as a whole.

Nothing but a huge tax with unlimited promises for the future made by people who are caretakers of the Leviathan. There couldn't be a worse form of taxes than a fake lie like "social security".

I think the government has no business telling you what you can and can't do in your personal life, provided that you are not harming others. I believe strongly in protecting the rights of minorities, and any discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, etc., can not be tolerated.

You are contradicting yourself. If the government can't tell me what to do, then how can it tell me I have to hire or associate with or rent to certain people or or other? That seems mighty intolerant.

The idea of life with no government is a grim one, and I hope few share GJ's views. I was recently in a bicycling accident and some passersby called government-run 911 for me. The ambulance was there in 2 minutes and the paramedics immediately began giving me urgent care. If this had been in GJ's Mad Max world, I suppose I would have called around to all the private ambulance companies, negotiated a price and paid them on the spot with junk silver or something before they would have helped. Oh, and nobody robbed me blind or kidnapped or sold me into slavery because we have a strong government police force and judicial system...

OK, enough.

Jimmy

That's ridiculous. People are very friendly and helpful becuase that is their nature. In a Libertarian world there would be numerous ways of getting help including private charity if you couldn't afford care. The strong government police force has *already* turned you into a slave, Jimmy. You are paying almost half your income against your will. At least, I'll speak for myself, I am paying this against my will. Isn't that the very definition of a slave?

[jimmygu3]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

GJ, rather than go back and forth, I suggest we agree to disagree about our philosophical differences.

One comment to both GJ and C1ue: I know I threw out the slavery reference first, but I think we should all shy away from equating 400 years of Africans treated as sub-humans, whipped, raped and killed at the whim of white men, with people who are stuck with crappy mortgages or taxes they don't like. Debtors can turn their keys over to the bank and/or declare bankruptcy. They can vote for lawmakers with tax policies they favor. My mother-in-law is not Hitler and debt and taxes are not slavery.

Jimmy

[DemonD]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

I understand the sentiment, but in reality the illegal immigrants benefit the status quo in the US.

For every instance of someone 'illegal' sucking up school or hospital resources, there are dozens of jobs which I don't want to do - and evidently most other Americans as well.

Another reason? Government policies.

the People's Republic of San Francisco just passed a law last year forcing all companies with 20 or more employees to pay $1.17/hour (20-99) or $1.76/hour (100+) in health care.

Unsurprisingly, a ton of medium sized businesses have left town.

The remaining large restaurants, etc I'm sure are busy with the shady side now if they weren't before.

The status quo sucks and has been sucking for many middle and lower middle class people who over the past 30 years have had downward mobility.

As far as the resource drain versus additional productivity, I reference you to this:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

Do a google search on "illegal immigrant costs."

For every instance of someone 'illegal' sucking up school or hospital resources, there are dozens of jobs which I don't want to do - and evidently most other Americans as well.

Now, my friend, you either know how to push my buttons, or you are unwittingly a believer in immigrant propaganda. Here's how to prove you are wrong:
Step 1: Get cable or Satellite TV
Step 2: Watch "Dirty Jobs" (a TV show that has documented well over 100 jobs that are dirty, nasty, disgusting, dangerous, hard labor, all done by americans, many white americans, many much more difficult than orange or strawberry picking)
Step 3: Realize that Americans will fill any job, no matter how menial or nasty, but only for the the right pay.

The right pay is key. Pay someone 20 bucks an hour with some benefits, I bet you could fill up orange groves with american citizens. But why pay 20/hour when you can pay someone 5 bucks an hour with no health care (why give them health care when they can go to the ER, give no SSN, and never pay and stick the state with the bill).

Your insinuation is frankly disturbing to me - that you believe the nonsense that comes out of the lefty immigrant mongrels and the rightist "free market" bastard republicans who hire them as gardeners. Americans have and continue to do every job there is, period. What they demand however is a fair wage. And the bottom line is that illegal immigration serves the agri industry in the same way that indonesia, taiwan, china, and the philippenes serves the garment, tech, car, furniture etc. industries, that is it insources cheap labor to keep costs down from paying fair wages to american citizens.

Regarding San Francisco, on that I will agree with you. That is not the first law that they have passed that has had negative ramifications. This is not the same as bringing penalties to companies who hire illegals. Hell, SF being so liberal I wouldn't be surprised if they give every illegal an ounce of weed for coming there.

Finally, your first line says "in reality the illegal immigrants benefit the status quo in the US." I disagree. It benefits the rich to the detriment of the middle and lower middle classes, and has been a contributing factor to decreased standards of living for the past 20 years or so. I would not say that it is the only factor, nor would i say that it is even a major factor, but it certainly is a significant factor.

Jimmy: regarding fining companies as the only deterrent. I think that should be a major deterrent, but you won't be able to stop it completely. A multifaceted strategy is needed, one being a secure border. The path to citizenship - horrible idea. Reagan did that in the 1980s. Amnesty for everyone. 20 years later we've got a whole new crop of illegals, because the illegals who became legal suddenly became americans who wanted, guess what? A fair wage. Always remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you keep giving incentives for illegals to come and stay here, more will come.

Maybe you guys will change your mind if some Juan Rodriguez steals your social security number and starts using it. Don't think it can happen?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22562690/

[jimmygu3]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Jimmy: regarding fining companies as the only deterrent. I think that should be a major deterrent, but you won't be able to stop it completely. A multifaceted strategy is needed, one being a secure border.

A secure border is a good idea, a 100 foot tall wall is not. Why would anyone spend 3 days walking through the desert to get to a place where there are no jobs available? If they would do that, wouldn't they also find a way over, under, around or through a massively expensive wall?

The path to citizenship - horrible idea. Reagan did that in the 1980s. Amnesty for everyone. 20 years later we've got a whole new crop of illegals, because the illegals who became legal suddenly became americans who wanted, guess what? A fair wage. Always remember the Law of Unintended Consequences. If you keep giving incentives for illegals to come and stay here, more will come.

Again, ENFORCING THE LAW would prevent future illegal immigrants from being lured here. Reagan gave amnesty but didn't punish companies that hired illegals. And I don't think a fair wage for immigrants is an 'unintended consequence'.

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

Capitalism can't possibly lead to monopolies. Competition will always take place unless government favors one group over another.

Do you really think this is so? Why is it impossible for someone in a specific business with reasonable barriers to entry - decide to buy out all of his competition then jack up rates? What would stop him?

For that matter, you're apparently also advocating removal of patent protection. I do believe the present patent system is screwy, but Bill Gates and Co wouldn't be what they are without patent protection.

Then there are those businesses which fundamentally aggregate control - because higher market share = higher pricing: advertising, movie production, television, etc etc.

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

It is true there are costs associated with illegals being present in the US, but I think where you and I diverge is that I believe it is impossible to keep all the illegals out.

For every cost, there is a benefit: for example Medicaid: In LA there are programs where for $9/hour, someone can come by a senior's home 3 days a week for 4 hours to provide basic non-medical services.

No one would ever do this except that doing so for a certain amount of time entitles the worker to Social Security benefits (upon retirement). So there is a cost there, but someone is also enjoying a benefit.

As for prison and court systems - well - if they're already criminals, I'm not sure how making existence in the US more illegal would help reduce costs. The Great Wall of Mexico idea, for example, would 'only' cost $2B, but what would be the cost of the increased police/INS/border patrol?

I'm not so sure we'd end up saving anything.

As for the orange groves - the immigrants there were getting paid around $4/hour without benefits in 2002 (last time I inquired).

$20/hour with benefits would increase labor costs around 5x.

According to this study:

http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2159.html

For a $1.10/lb farmer price received for blueberries, labor represents only $0.08/lb assuming a $6/hour rate.

Net on this $1.10 is only $0.31 and doesn't include production costs.

An increase of labor from $6 net to $24 net would mean costs jump to $0.32, but more importantly would eat up 75% of pre-production net.

If the cost were passed through straight, the farmer price received would only increase $1.34, a mere 21.8% jump.

But the economics of the situation means a probable 40% jump in actual prices; my own experience with the wholesale/distributor/retailer chain is that no one ever eats the costs from down the line.

So, 40% greater fruit costs would replace the 'illegal' pickers with $20/hr legals.

But, picking is seasonal. Secondly, what about the farms that continue to use illegals? The economics is that the $0.24 difference can be directly pocketed by the farmer or used to gain better market positioning.

Again, there are reasons besides pure cost for why illegals are used.

[DemonD]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

clue: what if you take all those cost increases, but then the associated hit to health care and other social services would go down. I'm trying to remember if you live in the SW united states; if you do, you are likely familiar with illegals filling county hospitals and clinics to the brim. And I'm sure competition at some level would keep food prices down, as well as increased use of technology. The cotton business didn't die off after the civil war, rather a combination of technology and new business practice has kept it going.

I'm not sure what your point is with the care providers doing non-medical in home service is.

All I know is that I've filled out an I-9 for every single job I've ever had.

And as for the courts and legal system, the punishment is simple, you put their picture, dna, and prints in the system, take them to their home country, and throw them on the ground like a rabblerouser who got too drunk at a bar.

I agree I don't think we can keep illegals out, but I believe in very strong deterrents every step of the way. As liberal as I see myself, I'm about as right-wing nutso on this as anyone else out there, i say round them up, put them on a bus, kick them in the ass and tell them don't let the door hit them on the ass on their way out, and while we're at it, we should also change the constitution so these bastards who plop a kid down on american soil, the kid does not get automatic US citizenship.

I think one of the best things the federal goverment can do is to either support or at the very least stay out of the way of cities and states who wish to enforce immigration laws. As it stands now the way I see it the politicians have been bought up by the agribusinesses and other industries that utilize illegal immigrant labor and there is a de facto support of illegal immigration as an unofficial "legal" way to outsource labor by insourcing illegals.

and clue, what do you say to all the construction jobs that have gone to illegals vs. american citizens? they still get paid fairly well (although they do get the shaft and get no pay sometimes). Many companies have utilized immigrant labor to undercut pricing, in fact some contracting companies have complained to municipalities about this, of course it all falls on deaf ears.

[grapejelly]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

if you look at any monopoly, you will see that eventually it collapses because of two issues.

One, is that the monopoly producer becomes inefficient. Their costs rise. Second, technology moves along and makes the monopoly product less important.

Eventually, consumers find substitutes.

Monopoly does not exist for very long in the real world. It is a construct that is created by people who want greater government coercion and control.

In reality, monopolies, where they exist, are either beneficial as long as they last (Microsoft), or are created from government favoritism (railroads, utilities, etc.) in the first place.

As far as immigration control, I am against any requirement to get government permission to work. A Libertarian is for freedom and liberty. Requiring an I-9 or other government permission to work is as anti freedom and liberty as you can get.

The real issue with illegal immigration is that public welfare benefits are offered to people who are illegally in a country. Take away the public welfare benefits and you have no more problem.

I am against all forms of welfare, including that given to individuals and that given to companies such as banks and defense contractors. I think a Libertarian who is pro-freedom and pro-liberty, by definition, is against this stuff.

There used to be a fine network of private charities in this country. Starting with the family unit itself, people were taking care of other people through private voluntary contract.

Government expansion into every part of our lives meant the dismantling of this great system. It's time to reverse this drain of private solutions and get government out of our lives.

When people fall on hard times, let them work with a network of private charitable hospitals and shelters and so forth. If we eliminate taxes (theft) then people will gladly donate a percentage of their income and their time to worthy charities. We would end the dependence upon Big Government and everyone especially the poor would be BETTER off.

[jimmygu3]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

As it stands now the way I see it the politicians have been bought up by the agribusinesses and other industries that utilize illegal immigrant labor and there is a de facto support of illegal immigration as an unofficial "legal" way to outsource labor by insourcing illegals.

That's my big complaint about this whole debate. It has been a unofficial "legal" situation for years- "don't-ask-don't-tell". The blame for this falls not just on the desparate individuals looking for work and a better life for their families. The companies who hire them, the political and judicial system that turns a blind eye, and every one of us who enjoys low priced food and manual-labor-intensive services without questioning the source of this labor, all share culpability for the current dysfunctional situation.

And as for the courts and legal system, the punishment is simple, you put their picture, dna, and prints in the system, take them to their home country, and throw them on the ground like a rabblerouser who got too drunk at a bar.
...i say round them up, put them on a bus, kick them in the ass and tell them don't let the door hit them on the ass on their way out, and while we're at it, we should also change the constitution so these bastards who plop a kid down on american soil, the kid does not get automatic US citizenship.

Your angry tone toward the workers and not the companies who hire them illustrates my previous point.

It would be relatively easy to give 30 days notice to all illegal immigrants and their employers. After that time, companies found in violation would be fined $10,000 per offense and the illegal worker deported, fingerprinted, etc. and denied future possibility of legal immigration. All those returning home during the grace period would be allowed to go through legal channels to properly immigrate as conditions permit. If you don't have a green card, you can't work. If you hire someone, you need to make a copy of their driver's license and/or green card to keep on file to show INS inspectors. None of this 'well, they gave me a social security number' crap.

What's so difficult about that? Well, it will hurt US agribusiness, restaurants, construction and other unskilled labor industries hard. My hunch is that when people realize that the loss of illegal workers hits them in the pocketbook, they will be more amenable to guest worker programs or increased legal immigration.

And I'm sure competition at some level would keep food prices down, as well as increased use of technology. The cotton business didn't die off after the civil war, rather a combination of technology and new business practice has kept it going.

Competition would keep prices down. My grocery store already gets most of their berries from south of the border, they would simply get ALL their berries from there. Hmmm, Chilean workers making $.24 an hour or Americans making $25- wonder who's going to outcompete the other?

Consider a fruit business that has 5 executives, 10 middle managers/supervisors, 25 skilled American workers and 50 illegal unskilled laborers. Replacing the 50 illegals with Americans making 5 times as much would put them out of business, outcompeted by foreign farms. Perhaps the executives and some of the managers and workers could go into the importation business, but many farms would go under, and many American jobs would be lost. This would put downward pressure on wages, and the groves that did survive could hire the formerly mid-tier skilled workers as orange pickers at Wal-Mart-style wages.

But before this was allowed to play out, agribusiness would demand their cheap latino workforce back as guest workers, gladly paying them minimum wage, and keeping the Americans in their mid-tier jobs.

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

I'm trying to remember if you live in the SW united states; if you do, you are likely familiar with illegals filling county hospitals and clinics to the brim.

I've lived in Texas for 5 years, and in CA for 20 wrapped around my ex-CA activities.

I've had first hand experience with these illegals; frankly I think those who come to the US to work in the fields are hard working, honest, and well meaning individuals. They bust their butts to send money home and are too 'old country' proud to take handouts from anyone.

On the other hand, there are plenty of those who are illegal and legal who consume lots of resources:

The Section 8 folk: My mother has had a house in a not so nice part of town where a family of Hmong - refugees from the Vietnam war - have been living subsidized for 15 years. I also know of a number of Jewish families in San Francisco who have brought relatives from overseas as 'political refugees', then rent out houses on Section 8 to neighbors relatives in exchange for said neighbors doing the same.

Chinese are no different: how many naturalized foreigners have brought in their parents - paid a bit of social security - then starting collecting benefits as these parents are already of retirement age.

Then there are the 2nd generation: the first generation Hmong were self-contained, industrially primitive folk. Their kids, on the other hand, often turned out into wild animals. Something about their parents not understanding anything of modern American society and their kids - being able to speak English - getting control of family finances at the age of 14 or even younger.

Just pointing out that it is probably a fallacy to label all illegals in the same bucket.

And I'm sure competition at some level would keep food prices down, as well as increased use of technology.

Why would technology keep food prices down? Or are you a believer in the vat food? In this era of rising petroleum prices and declining food surpluses, labor is the last major component. Technology is not - not until fusion reactors can make more power than they consume.

The cotton business didn't die off after the civil war, rather a combination of technology and new business practice has kept it going.

Yes, but you're missing the point: the Civil War was as much about labor systems as politics: the North used machines and factories, the South used slaves. The mechanical reaper spelled the end of the South - no longer was farming as dependent on human labor during the harvest as had been the case for thousands of years. So unsurprisingly all those newly unemployed harvest workers could be deployed by the Union as soldiers while the South could hardly arm their workers. It is somewhat poetic as the cotton gin is the machine which caused the rise of slave labor as a profitable institution.

I'm not sure what your point is with the care providers doing non-medical in home service is.

They're doing a job which literally no one else would do. Admittedly, they do a poor job in this context, but they are providing a service - one which I would (am) charging 2.5x for.

As liberal as I see myself, I'm about as right-wing nutso on this as anyone else out there, i say round them up, put them on a bus, kick them in the ass and tell them don't let the door hit them on the ass on their way out, and while we're at it, we should also change the constitution so these bastards who plop a kid down on american soil, the kid does not get automatic US citizenship.

What happened to "send me your poor, your huddled masses"?

Anyhow, what I'm merely pointing out is that increased enforcement has monetary and societal costs as well. It is not clear to me that this cost is less than the cost presently being paid out via medical, welfare, and other form of illegal immigrant service-use.

and clue, what do you say to all the construction jobs that have gone to illegals vs. american citizens?

I'd say that all in all, it was a wash. The American citizens wanted to be the mortgage bankers, loan officers and real estate agents.

Sure, the illegals were paid less. They also didn't get unemployment, nor health insurance, nor disability, and definitely no job security.

The few I know who were doing construction all left those jobs and are now driving trucks, repairing home appliances, etc.

True illegals don't want government assistance - it highlights their presence to the authorities. Gold-diggers, on the other hand, are different.

[DemonD]

Re: iTulip Guide for the Intelligent Libertarian

I've lived in Texas for 5 years, and in CA for 20 wrapped around my ex-CA activities.

I've had first hand experience with these illegals; frankly I think those who come to the US to work in the fields are hard working, honest, and well meaning individuals. They bust their butts to send money home and are too 'old country' proud to take handouts from anyone.

Hard-working - for the most part yes.
Well-meaning - if by well meaning you mean looking out for themselves and their family to the damnation of their community, city, state, country, and society, then sure.
Honest - absolutely not. Illegals use either fake or stolen SSN's all the time. They made up a lot of the people who used liar loans. They could have emigrated legally (yes, we still do have legal immigration channels, even if the rules can be bent like your Jews in San Fran example). Illegals are the biggest consumer without paying in for medical care. This is not to mention the very large and very real gangs and criminal networks that illegals from various central american countries have up and running. Have you ever hung out with illegals? Worked with them on a daily basis? Have you ever been with groups of mexicans that know virtually no English?

I have. I feel you completely mis-judge their sense of entitlement. Most people on this planet have huge senses of entitlement, and mexican illegals have just as much if not more as the average poor american.

The Section 8 folk: My mother has had a house in a not so nice part of town where a family of Hmong - refugees from the Vietnam war - have been living subsidized for 15 years.

And how many vietnamese are just getting off the boat now yearly here in the US?

Just pointing out that it is probably a fallacy to label all illegals in the same bucket.

Did I do that?

Why would technology keep food prices down?...

...The mechanical reaper

Technology tends to improve production of the jobs that are laborious. We have wheat harvesters. There are a few companies out there exploring mechanical harvesters for fruit trees. I see no reason why robots and machines wouldn't be able to eventually replace a lot of the farm labor in the future - since historically they have done that. But if it's cheaper to use labor, then there wouldn't be an incentive to progress technologically, would there?

Regarding caretakers:

They're doing a job which literally no one else would do. Admittedly, they do a poor job in this context, but they are providing a service - one which I would (am) charging 2.5x for.

My ex-girlfriend, 100% American born and raised, did just this job (quit after 6 months due to the stress of the client). In my job, I meet plenty of people who have caretakers. Sometimes, the caretakers are in their 70's - they are friends of the patient, and they help them out with daily stuff and get paid for it. Yes, indeed, many caretakers are illegals, or at least immigrants; many times i see philippino caretakers. But to say no one else would do that is a false statement.

What happened to "send me your poor, your huddled masses"?

Last time I checked, ellis island wasn't processing immigrants. Nice slogan for a statue though. As a libertarian, I believe that citizens of my country come first, that we can't help anyone if we can't help ourselves. Not to be isolationist, mind you, just to protect our own back yards.

I'd say that all in all, it was a wash. The American citizens wanted to be the mortgage bankers, loan officers and real estate agents.

On this we can agree: Americans definitely have a huge sense of individual entitlement.

Sure, the illegals were paid less. They also didn't get unemployment, nor health insurance, nor disability, and definitely no job security.

Yes, no, no, no, yes.
Yes- illegals were paid less.
No - many have gotten unemployment
No - many do get health insurance, oftentimes from worker's comp, or else they just go to a hospital and get health care for free
No - There's a reason many lawyers "se habla espaņol."
Yes - true, no job security.

Let me reiterate something: I have worked, on a day to day basis, with many immigrants (legal and illegal), this is recently. This is all from my own eyeballs. Illegals, mexicans included, know how to game the system and ride it for all it's worth just as much as anyone.

True illegals don't want government assistance - it highlights their presence to the authorities. Gold-diggers, on the other hand, are different.

This just has not been my experience. While many illegals are indeed hard working, I've never seen an illegal refuse government assistance. The reason an illegal doesn't want assistance is more out of fear, fear of being reported, or fear of, for example going to a doctor, many don't go to doctors and dentists because of bad experiences in their home countries. (Doctors? I don't trust those doctors.)

I'll agree to disagree with you clue, I feel like I've made my point, no need to rehash it further after this.