Shutting Down the Government

Something new for me today. Thank you.
 
Rights don't need to be balanced by wrongness.
 
Rights that create wrongness are more liable to be infringed upon or done away with, thats why people wanna ban guns and why we have a drug war.
 
Whatever Tim.
 
Then by all means discount them. For if they think "the public good" is at all the purpose, they have forgotten the basic premise of a right.

If we're tempted to allow them that mistake, so have we.

How was it said again?

"More rogues than honest men find shelter under habeus corpus."
 
Last edited:
I dont see guns, drugs or illegal immigrants as a public good. But I dont think the public good is necessarily the goal of society. I know its a phrase people use, but its too subjective for my tastes. Some really nasty things are done in the name of the public good.
 
I dont see guns, drugs or illegal immigrants as a public good. But I dont think the public good is necessarily the goal of society. I know its a phrase people use, but its too subjective for my tastes. Some really nasty things are done in the name of the public good.

Nasty things are done in the name of religon, in the name of Political system and so on
Right now the US has serious problems with gun violence and Opiode epidemic with Republicans in charge it looks like another Drug crackdown and more gun deregulation
 
a) It is expansionary policy at a time when the economy is at basically full employment and we are coming due to another recession.

I am for redefining full employment to mean actually zero unemployment. NAIRU is a Big Lie designed to pull the wool over workers' eyes.
Anyway this isn't really true imo. Aggregate demand is still low. We have all sorts of space for expansionary policy right now. The real problem isn't that the government is spending money, it's your b)...it's what the government is spending the money on.

Right now the government's fiscal policy should be focused on slowing things down so they have tools for the next recession.

What does this mean?

are we pretending illegal immigration is?

I'll field that and say yes, people actually coming here to do the work that lily-white Americans are too good to do, is good for society. What's bad for society is the current state of immigration law.
 
So what you're saying is immigration is good, and illegal immigration is bad. That's what those two sentences lay out. I'm inclined to agree. But as with all things, there's a number of complexities there. Personally, for a guy who grew up walking beans, who likes walking beans, and would be happy to walk beans - my "lily white" ass isn't unwilling to do that sort of work, Americans just refuse to pay properly for the product. So we need browns to do it ch33p. Don't worry. I'm sure a robot will automate most of us eventually, then we'll come wash your laundry or something. Maybe selectively encourage people to leave after we shut down unskilled entries. That would be a tried and true.
 
So what you're saying is immigration is good, and illegal immigration is bad.

Illegal immigration is bad because the law creates a category of people with no legal protections. The people who come to the United States illegally are not the problem. The problem is the law and Congress' failure to address it.

So what you're saying is immigration is good, and illegal immigration is bad. That's what those two sentences lay out. I'm inclined to agree. But as with all things, there's a number of complexities there. Personally, for a guy who grew up walking beans, who likes walking beans, and would be happy to walk beans - my "lily white" ass isn't unwilling to do that sort of work, Americans just refuse to pay properly for the product. So we need browns to do it ch33p. Don't worry. I'm sure a robot will automate most of us eventually, then we'll come wash your laundry or something. Maybe selectively encourage people to leave after we shut down unskilled entries. That would be a tried and true.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration

According to this story...

Some farmers are even giving laborers benefits normally reserved for white-collar professionals, like 401(k) plans, health insurance, subsidized housing and profit-sharing bonuses. Full-timers at Silverado Farming, for example, get most of those sweeteners, plus 10 paid vacation days, eight paid holidays, and can earn their hourly rate to take English classes.

But the raises and new perks have not tempted native-born Americans to leave their day jobs for the fields. Nine in 10 agriculture workers in California are still foreign born, and more than half are undocumented, according to a federal survey.

I don't think you're correct that the problem is we need browns to do it cheap. The problem is that native-born American kids see that kind of work as low-status and not for people like them. I think they're wrong, but they're obviously not coming out to do the work even with decent money and benefits being offered.
 
I still haven't found a plan I'm foolish enough to suggest my father risk the farm over trying to compete with federal water in California with basis off the top. So, I'm on the Midwest pay scale. Our wage-jobs push snow, cut grass, and tell the GPS when to turn at the end of the field. The confinement pens don't pay too bad, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Then by all means discount them. For if they think "the public good" is at all the purpose, they have forgotten the basic premise of a right.

If we're tempted to allow them that mistake, so have we.
Indeed... "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

"all men" not just "citizens of the Untied States of America"

In other words... the so-called "illegal immigrant's" Right to Liberty (freedom) and the Pursuit of Happiness is unalienable. It supersedes "the public good" and is higher than any law. It is not subject to the laws of any particular country and cannot be made illegal. The "illegal immigrant" is a free man, with the liberty to move about the world. His freedom of movement does not cease to exist because he enters the United States. He does not cease to be free or cease to have the Right to pursue happiness because he crosses our borders. Our individual, (or collective), subjective notions of our own national "public good" do not extinguish his Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

We cannot and should not say to a man... "You have the Right to be free and the Right to pursue happiness... until you enter the United States of America."
 
I am for redefining full employment to mean actually zero unemployment. NAIRU is a Big Lie designed to pull the wool over workers' eyes.
Care to elaborate?

Anyway this isn't really true imo. Aggregate demand is still low. We have all sorts of space for expansionary policy right now. The real problem isn't that the government is spending money, it's your b)...it's what the government is spending the money on.
Fair

What does this mean?
Basically since Greenspan the Fed never let up the monetary stimulus policy and kept interest low. As a result, when the global economy went all Hindenburg on us in 2008 the Fed, and most other central banks, had to resort to some increasingly creative methods to pump money into the economy. Lowering interest wasn't really possible unless you wanted to try the European shenanigans with negative interest rates.
Similar state of affairs with tax cuts. Tax cuts are quick and easy ways to pump more money into the economy in a recession without needing to deal with government programs. (Especially in minor recessions where the government's main priority should be demand smoothing.) You can't keep cutting taxes forever.
 
Indeed Sommer. Indeed. However, the solution to illegal entry is still expulsion of that free man. A right is not an entitlement. A right is innate and encapsulated in the man. An entitlement is an active onus placed on others. Now, how to address people who entered illegally, who are for all practical and functionable purposes also American (citizens), and how to enforce our border to prevent this situation, as best as is possible, in the future. Enforcement needs to be enfocement.
 
I am for redefining full employment to mean actually zero unemployment.

Can't work. There will always be frictional unemployment, unless you can create some sort of mandate that keeps people from changing jobs. That would be beyond draconian, and even then probably wouldn't work.
 
Back
Top Bottom