Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again my friend "I am for open borders ONLY if we guarantee no taxpayer money would go to immigrants period." - my quote above.
Again, I want America to abolish all taxpayer-subsidized entitlements. ALL. To anyone. I WANT open borders. I think it would make America more wealthy, and believe it or not more secure. I am for a free and open society where all cultures compete on equal footing (Government provides no favoritism, no affirmative action).
Moreover, I'm not a gradualist. I'm an abolitionist. I want all victimless crime laws abolished NOW. I want taxes and entitlement spending abolished now. Initiation of force is still initiation of force if the theives calling themselves government steal half as much from us as they now steal. Or if they (like in California) allow us only 2 oz of marijuana per possession but prison if it's 2.01 ounces.
"A libertarian is also not obligated to support policies that may be the result of illegal immigration that pick one's pocket, including the health care costs of emergency room visits, education, social services, law enforcement, etc. that are not reimbursed by taxes from those using them."
Libertarianism is a doctrine, not a mutual sucide pact. The danger of imposing libertarian solutions onto a non-libertarian, social-welfare society is that we still have to live in the real world where the social-welfare society is paid for by the taxes I pay. You can argue that "if only" none of us had to pay taxes, then the resulting laissez-faire society would work wonderfully, but then you're describing a utopian fantasy-world.
In the same way, the total legalization of drugs (All drugs? Really?) you advocate would probably work in a society where we didn't have to pay for the societal costs of drug use, and those who burned out from drug use were responsible only unto themselves. But that is not what American society evolved into during the last century. We have evolved (and continue to evolve) into a European-model social-welfare, social-entitlements society. In that kind of society, someone has to pay for the cost of (again) emergency room visits, special education costs for the children of drug users, welfare costs for those who can't responsibly use drugs and hold down a job at the same time, rehabilitation costs for those whose drug use has affected their ability to be a responsible parent, the law enforcement costs of dealing with those who use drugs to lower their inhibitions against committing violent crimes, and the law enforcement costs of dealing with the kids of those parents who ignored them growing up because they loved dope more than their kids. That doesn't describe everyone who uses drugs, but it describes a whole lot, of them, including many of those with whom I grew up. Americans, as a rule, do not reduce use of a substance when it is made easier to obtain. We are the country that invented Supersizing your Value Meal, and look what that made us - some of the most obese mother-hubbards on the planet. Someone has to pay the societal costs associated with increased drug use, and it will be me and every other Arizona taxpayer.
And no, the drug cartels of Mexico are unlikely to give up their vast criminal enterprises because drugs are legalized in the U.S. They will promote other, more dangerous drugs, pursue other more dangerous criminal activities, and/or pursue control of the supply of medical marijuana in Arizona through violence. It's not like anyone like the FDA will be tracking the origin or quality of marijuana sold by the dispensaries. A monoply of violence tends to override market forces.
Sorry to be Debbie Downer here. I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it.
I am not in favor of legalizing all drugs, but I am in favor of medicinal marijuana and decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marihuana. It costs too much to enforce, prosecute, convict and jail. I say grow it, sell it and tax it. Use proceeds to tackle the mental health situation in this country.
Continued criminal activity and violence by the drug cartels are not going to decrease regardless of how much law enforcement and money you throw at them. I think society would be better served if we addressed the root cause of substance abuse (and every other dangerous behavior) out there. Namely, addictive thinking. As a physician, I'm sure you see signs and symptoms of addictive thinking every day: alcoholism, smoking, gambling, overeating, control freaks/manipulators, etc. I don't know if entertainment/media and retailers has a lot to do with it, but there are too many people out there thinking that they and everything has to be perfect, that life is to be grand and painless without any personal effort, and that they always have to get their way regardless.
I think it is high time that we taught life skills/coping skills in grades K-12 because too many parents are failing in that regard. It'll take at least 2 generations to make significant progress, but something must be done. Take smoking for example. It is legal, but through education and social pressure a lot of people have quit and it certainly isn't considered glamorous. It went from cool, glamourous and "normal" to disgusting bad habit. I do believe there are less smokers now than in 1975.
We have to motivate people not to want to abuse anything: drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, etc.
Arizona is NOT libertarian. If it was we would not have added a constitutional ban against gays getting married, medical marijuana would have passed by 70 plus percent, and 1070 would not have had the support it had.
Medical marijuana is legal in California. Would you actually claim that California is a libertarian state? I hope not.
The only states in this country that come somewhat close to being libertarian are Nevada and Alaska. That's it.
Arizona is both fiscally and socially conservative. Fiscal + Social Conservatism = Oppression.
Anyone who thinks Arizona is conservative hasn't lived in a conservative state. They are usually people from California or some other ultra liberal state and by comparison, they think we are conservative when in reality we are libertarian and this law only reinforces that. There is a reason states like South Carolina and Texas have not passed medical marijuana laws.
You don't understand what libertarianism is. And your 3 years in Arizona shows you clearly do not understand that Arizona has traditionally been known as a libertarian state.
Quote:
If it was we would not have added a constitutional ban against gays getting married
In 2006, Arizona voters rejected an anti-gay law that would have defined marriage as being limited to a man and woman
Quote:
medical marijuana would have passed by 70 plus percent
If Arizona was a conservative state, it wouldn't have passed at all.
Quote:
1070 would not have had the support it had.
Libertarian thought is why 1070 was rejected. Libertarianism emphasizes fiscal conservatism. Illegals stress the state economically by increasing healthcare and education costs among other things. I know its easy to depict the entire state as being bigoted but when 30% of the Hispanic population here embraced it among other minorities, it tells you that 1070 goes beyond racial lines and many people endorsed it for fiscal reasons.
Quote:
Medical marijuana is legal in California. Would you actually claim that California is a libertarian state?
California is not libertarian because it's a fiscally liberal state that believes in high taxes and free spending. Libertarianism emphasizes fiscal conservativeness and socially moderate policies. Also the majority of politicians in this state until the recent election were Democrats! Tempe had an openly gay major a few years ago. Our former DEMOCRAT governor is rumored to be a lesbian that only a moron would assume was straight.
Our current system is broken. SB1070 is a mirror of a failed federal policy that does not work. It denies the fact we have a need for outside labor. Let people come here legally and easily to work jobs Americans don't want. Don't make those with brown skin the scapegoat.
That's a weak argument. The reason Americans don't want those jobs is because they pay low wages due to the influx of illegal labor which command lower wages. If the supply of illegals decreased, employers would be forced to pay higher wages to lure workers and then Americans would want those jobs. If those jobs pay $12 an hour with benefits, people will apply for those jobs as is the case with In and Out burger in which they had thousands of applicants per job listing due to the benefits and higher pay they afford. This is a fast food job...the type of job that Americans supposedly don't want remember! We don't need a guest worker program, enforce the laws...keep illegals out and force employers to pay higher wages and employ Americans which will then stir the economy.
Quote:
Again, I'm flabbergasted that people keep calling SB1070 a libertarian view. I swear some people think it's the case because of guys like Glenn Beck claim to be libertarian when they are nothing of the sort.
I fail to see how you think it's not a libertarian policy. Illegals lead to increased spending and government intervention which leads to higher taxes.
That's a weak argument. The reason Americans don't want those jobs is because they pay low wages due to the influx of illegal labor which command lower wages. If the supply of illegals decreased, employers would be forced to pay higher wages to lure workers and then Americans would want those jobs. If those jobs pay $12 an hour with benefits, people will apply for those jobs as is the case with In and Out burger in which they had thousands of applicants per job listing due to the benefits and higher pay they afford. This is a fast food job...the type of job that Americans supposedly don't want remember! We don't need a guest worker program, enforce the laws...keep illegals out and force employers to pay higher wages and employ Americans which will then stir the economy.
You misstate the issues. It is not true that hispanics take sub marginal pay. They did and do work cheaper than US union labor and quite dominate the residental construction industry in the southwest. But they are in fact reasonable well paid. Just not paid as extravagantly as the prior US labor. The jobs in the local Las Vegas market pay well more than $12 an hour. You may find casual labor at $12 or $15 an hour but the construction and resort industry pay higher than that.
There are some tens of thousands of illegals in the SW gainfully employed. Gardeners, house cleaners, hotel workers, construction. If you replace them it is clear that the costs to society would greatly increase. In fact CIS argues against amnesty on the basis that making the illegals legals would vastly increase their cost to society.
So how do you replace them? With whom? And how do you handle the increased cost.
Quote:
I fail to see how you think it's not a libertarian policy. Illegals lead to increased spending and government intervention which leads to higher taxes.
YOu have that backwards. Replacing the illegals leads to higher costs and bigger government. It would therefore seem a libertarian would favor their continuance on a lesser of evils basis.
You misstate the issues. It is not true that hispanics take sub marginal pay. They did and do work cheaper than US union labor and quite dominate the residental construction industry in the southwest. But they are in fact reasonable well paid. Just not paid as extravagantly as the prior US labor. The jobs in the local Las Vegas market pay well more than $12 an hour. You may find casual labor at $12 or $15 an hour but the construction and resort industry pay higher than that.
Telling someone else they misstate issues does not make it so. You agree that they moved in to Vegas and brought the price of construction down. What happened to the displaced construction workers? To heII with them?? On the Vegas site citizens are fighting over $8 jobs. Yet you have no problem with illegals coming here and taking jobs from citizens. I wonder why.
There are some tens of thousands of illegals in the SW gainfully employed. Gardeners, house cleaners, hotel workers, construction. If you replace them it is clear that the costs to society would greatly increase. In fact CIS argues against amnesty on the basis that making the illegals legals would vastly increase their cost to society.
And the reason why it would increase the cost to society? It is not because someone would have to pay a few bucks more for housekeeping or lawn work as so many try to portray it. It is the additional costs to healthcare, education, law enforcement etc. Do you really favor slave wages? Is that selfish or racist?
So how do you replace them? With whom? And how do you handle the increased cost.
The increased costs will be absorbed when the workforce of the US is employed again. Before the invasion of our border there were US citizens doing the jobs at a decent wage. It's time for employers to do the right thing or be penalized. You keep asking the same questions as if you don't know the answers.
YOu have that backwards. Replacing the illegals leads to higher costs and bigger government. It would therefore seem a libertarian would favor their continuance on a lesser of evils basis.
And again you give your opinion as fact. By eliminating the illegals through attrition it leads to less entitlement spending, and taxes being paid by job holders. Do you really have such disdain for US citizens?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
