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.
I've never met a Libertarian who wasn't a spoiled brat that grew up in an upper middle class suburb and never had to worry about anything in life because they always had mommy and daddy's checkbook to fall back on.
Show me a Libertarian who didn't grow up in at least a $500,000 home in an upper middle class suburb and I'll show you the Unicorn I have for sale.
I've never met a Libertarian who wasn't a spoiled brat that grew up in an upper middle class suburb and never had to worry about anything in life because they always had mommy and daddy's checkbook to fall back on.
Show me a Libertarian who didn't grow up in at least a $500,000 home in an upper middle class suburb and I'll show you the Unicorn I have for sale.
Here I am.
Grew up on a poor dairy farm. We milked 40 head. Hand me downs until I joined the service.
I think you have libertarian and Liberal confused.
I never met a libertarian that didnt work for all he had.
Here I am.
Grew up on a poor dairy farm. We milked 40 head. Hand me downs until I joined the service.
I think you have libertarian and Liberal confused.
I never met a libertarian that didnt work for all he had.
I'm a liberal and I have never been on welfare.
Let's make a free market like Mexico has.
Under-regulated capitalism doesn't really produce prosperity. Look at Mexico, their economy is very unregulated, so is every other 3rd world country. There is no evidence that capitalism without regulations is a successful system.
The libertarians who talk about individual rights and individual liberties sure make a lot of sense though.
what part have they actually played? They have had candidates that barely make any kind of showing so, what is the point?
Well, lets discuss the reality of the situation really quickly by breaking "immigrants" down into legal and illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at rates much higher than the general population.
If you're trying to support this claim with the citations below, you're in for a surprise. You try to break apart illegal and legal immigrants, but neither of your three sources have done so. In fact, they meta-study by CIS generally examined only "foreign-born" prisoners, not illegal or legal specifically, which presents a huge problem for you. One of their summary's of a study showed that 3\4 of the foreign-born prisoners were in for immigration violation. 75%. That means of the 221,000 prisoners estimated to be in prisons that are foreign-born, 55,000 are there for a reason other than immigration.
Quote:
While legal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the general population. Why such a difference? And what does it mean?
You've completely failed to provide evidence of this assertion.
If we clumped legal and illegal immigrants back into a single group, calling them just "immigrants". We know that immigrants as an entire group actually commit crime at higher rates than the general population. But to be fair, illegal immigrants tend to be much poorer than legal immigrants. And crime tends to follow poverty.
Crime and poverty are correlationally linked. But you have a confounding variable--illegal immigrations are here illegally, which means if they engage in criminal acts, they rapidly increase their chances of getting deported. Counter to your belief, logically someone who is here illegally and does not want to be deported would engage in acts that are less likely to get them deported. I.E., not being a criminal.
Quote:
But there could be a psychological side to the situation. You could argue that illegal immigrants are more likely to be criminal, not because their poverty, but because of their illegal status itself.
That's whisper thin surface logic punctuated by much stronger reasoning of--well, reality.
Quote:
And that if there were open-borders, then there would be no illegals, which would prevent those people from being in a situation of desperation that pushes many to become criminals to begin with.
As for immigrants, cultural differences, and crime. I don't necessarily like to say that all immigrants cause spikes in crime, because it isn't true. But, it is partially true. To understand my point you need to break down immigrants in different groups.
I originally questioned your statement that culturally different persons result in more crime. Let's see how it goes...
Quote:
Take for instance Japanese immigrants, Vietnamese immigrants, Italian immigrants, Swedish immigrants, and Irish immigrants. Japanese immigrants have extremely low crime rates, and there are no Japanese gangs. On the other hand, there are plenty of Vietnamese gangs, but still relatively low crime rates. On the other hand, historically, the Italians and Irish when they came to this country in the 1800's, had relatively high crime rates and ran the most infamous gangs in the country. While Swedish immigrants have never been known for crime or gangs.
Although a host of reasons exists to expect that immigrants are high-crime
prone, the bulk of empirical studies conducted over the past century have
found that immigrants are typically underrepresented in criminal statistics.
I think you just lost that talking point. You'll need to invent a new one.
Quote:
You are missing my point when it comes to regulation. What I was saying is, there needs to be regulation regardless of how libertarian/anarchist you think you are. And regulation is a good thing in many aspects, but there is a point when regulation is too great and is harmful. The problem is, how do we know when we have taken things too far?
You can't support purely free-market economics with no regulations, while simultaneously supporting heavily enforced borders with minimal immigration. These positions are diametrically opposed.
Quote:
The best way to know when things have been taken too far, is to make comparisons. If one city is attracting more people and businesses because of its policies, then we know that those policies work, and other cities will try to adopt the same policies to attract more people and businesses. This is a form of competition, by giving people the ability to "vote with their feet".
I believe someone already covered that problem with regards to confederacy v. federalism. I'll leave he or she to argue that one.
Quote:
Think of it like this. Lets pretend that the Soviet Union invented the Nuclear bomb and completely took over the world.
Despite harnessing nuclear energy, the United States never took over the world. Are you telling me that I'm to believe that the Soviet Union would have taken over the world? Where is the logic in that?
Quote:
Would the Soviet Union still have collapsed? Collapsing is rarely so much about things simply falling apart. It is usually more about someone else doing things obviously better than you. The United States and the west just were more advanced than the Soviets, they had higher quality-of-life than the Soviets, and the Soviets were extremely corrupt.
There is more to the fall of the Soviet Union than just "out-competing" them. I don't think you can make an argument that we were more advanced than the Soviet Union. It was an Arms Race for a reason, and didn't have a blue-shell. The Soviet Union and the resurrection of Eastern Europe is a tremendously complex topic which we really don't have the time or energy to discuss here.
But let's keep it simple. Since I'm already being told that I'm to believe the USSR would have taken over the world with the advent of nuclear weapons, I guess I can accept that simply "out-competed" the Soviets.
Quote:
Western-style democracies were out-competing communism, just as Western-style democracies out-competed monarchies and other forms of dictatorships.
UK still has a monarchy. I feel like you are tremendously over-simplifying your analogies and arguments, and it isn't helping your case.
Quote:
Our style of government will continue to exist as it is, until something better comes along, which can attract more people and business.
Except the United States isn't a pure democracy. Most countries aren't. We're a variety of hodge-podge collections of quasi-democratic governments.
And communism isn't a system of government. Your diatribe into world governments (or lack thereof) hasn't helped your case or that your original analogy was just terrible.
Quote:
Well, the truth is, your example is absolutely terrible, because you fail to acknowledge reality.
Let me address your example first, then address the overall picture of monopoly.
Baseball is a sport, but more importantly, MLB is a business. The MLB passes rules not out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather to increase their profits. When they impose a salary cap, it isn't because they want to help the poorer teams or the fans. It is because they want to increase the number of people who watch baseball, go to the games, and buy the merchandise. The reason why the MLB makes these rules, is because their business has to compete with other businesses for market. They have to create a product that people are willing to pay for. If one team was better than all the other teams because they had so much more money and could buy all the best players, then people might stop watching, because it would be a foregone conclusion that every single year the Yankees would win the World Series, and the people in every city but New York would simply stop watching.
The MLB is actually quite irrelevant to the discussion. Baseball itself--any sport--is derived specifically from competition. Rules are required in competition in order to have competition. Even Calvinball has rules. Without some kind of structure system in which the interested parties agree to, you simply don't have competition. If everyone is on the same side, who is there to compete with? Enter Monopolies, which is your next topic...
Quote:
When we look at monopolies, we really have to be careful about reality vs propaganda. Can you tell me anywhere there has been a monopoly in which the government has broken up, and in breaking them up, we have gotten a better service?
Competition doesn't necessarily mean better service per se. But a monopoly by its design doesn't promote competition, because there are no competitors.
Quote:
Did breaking up Bell telephone give people better and cheaper telephone service? Where exactly have these monopolies existed in this country that were beneficially broken up by regulations?
Are you arguing that breaking Bell wasn't beneficial? We now have multiple competing corporations which promote competition. Verizon and AT&T directly resulted from that break-up, and they're massive competitors. Natural monopolies, like utilities, that form because of high-cost entries must be regulated to promote competition. Otherwise, they would never have competition in the first place, and that is ripe for abuse. How is monopolistic control over a market beneficial?
A couple of problems. Friedman's being a little disingenious with this "gotcha" answer of having only one law. Inventing a blanket law to control monopolies is absurd, as is believing FTAs and free-market economics as being the "cure all" to every economic woe. I can appreicate Friedman as an economist, but his beliefs are far too simplistic for a much more complicated world. "Free-market" everything is as relevant to economics today as the wind is to climate. They are multifaceted and extraordinary complex machinations that don't have simple answers. I'm curious if he still supports such beliefs in the face of tremendous outsourcing of American labor.
Quote:
I think you are right in that regulation may be necessary to create fairness on certain levels. In the case of China. They subsidize their business by keeping their currency artificially cheap. And there may be a need for regulation to create fairness when there is abuse. My argument is that, the regulation needs not be on a global scale, but as local as possible. That system allows for competition and freedom, by allowing people to go to the place that provides them with what they believe best provides them with what they want or need.
And where is the federal government stepping out of bounds? How is breaking up an interstate monopoly outside of federal prevue?
Quote:
My point is simply that, if a city wants to "unjustly" discriminate, I don't agree with it, but they should have that right.
No they shouldn't. That's a workaround for majority tyranny at worst. There are "protected" minorities that are unfairly and unjustly discriminated against, including racial, age, gender, and sexual minorities. Allowing a municipality to have a "now hiring: non-****" sign in their window is morally reprehensible. A government is to take a neutral position and not favor any one creed over another. Allowing a city to do such sets a dangerous precedent.
Quote:
You don't have to live there, nor do you have to do any business with them. If enough people were opposed to their form of discrimination, then they would be economically pressured to change their policies.
A municipality is not and never will be a private enterprise. Allowing a government entity at any level to willy-nilly discriminate against persons is asinine. This is a government of the people, for the people, by the people. Why cut out ******s and kikes? Because they don't work or have too much money? You see how ridiculous this is, right? Why go after the easy ones though, why not discriminate against people who are less than five-foot six? Short people aren't good to look at, so we shouldn't have them manning the desks in Town Hall.
Quote:
Think of it like the sanctions we put on Iran. We don't have any laws that can govern Iran, we can't stop them from pursuing things we disagree with, but we can exert incredible influence on them politically and economically to convince them to pursue different policies.
Who is we? The American Public? We have a way of doing that already--voting. We vote our representatives into office to lead this country and do the job they are elected to do. As a member of the government, and acting in that capacity, they have a responsibility to be neutral. A government cannot be for the people democratically while also sanctioned to discriminate arbitrarily.
Quote:
It does mean that there could potentially be places in this country that could effectively become like little Iran's or North Korea. But it is incredibly unlikely.
THE. SOUTH. It's already full of good ol' boys just waitin'. I'm sure you saw Alexandra Pelosi's video on Mississippi, right?
Quote:
The reason why is because, one of the things we love the most in this country, the first amendment, didn't even apply to the states until the 14th amendment in 1868. And while there were many states that did not have a separation of church and state, and who did not give people 100% freedom of speech in the early days of this country. Those rights were ubiquitous long before the 14th amendment.
As I said. I'm sure you're a "constitutionalist," and that's swell, but this isn't 1781. Our society has been around for a couple hundred years and has subsequently changed. The constitution not only set up a framework for how the government was to work, but how it can be changed as well.
And you know what? Society has changed. Our laws have done so as well. For the better.
Quote:
The government cannot discriminate, it is true. But why? Because we passed laws that prohibited it. But what laws are they? Are they in the constitution? What part of the constitution gave the federal government the authority to pass the "Civil Rights act" for instance? It was the commerce clause, a very very liberal interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, which has absolutely nothing in common with the original intentions of the clause.
True, but we pass a lot under congress' ability to look out for the welfare of the nation actual. And that's okay. That's their responsibility as law-makers.
Quote:
As for insurance companies raising rates on minorities. There has to be a reason for it. I don't believe there is a unified group of insurance companies who are working together to overcharge minorities. All it would take would be one insurance company that didn't overcharge minorities and the whole damn thing would collapse because all the minorities would go to that insurance company. You are making assertions that are beyond any reason.
No, I'm not. I have an inside scoop as to the operations of insurance companies. Even if it isn't racist now (it still is), it originally was racist in the past. Insurers, bankers, et al. would price different areas higher because they were black (or other minority) neighborhoods. Higher rates on your mortgage, or higher insurance premiums make it harder to pay those rates. When you're paying $4000 for a car worth $2000, you don't pay your insurance but one month so you can register it. Then you drop your insurance. When you have a lot of people doing this, the action itself is cyclic. Insurance rates go up in area X because X is "high-crime," and also nobody pays their insurance in area X. As a result, few people pay their insurance in area X because it's too damn high. So the prices go up. And fewer people pay. And the prices go up. Rinse. Repeat.
NO insurance company has of yet taken the risk to lower insurance premiums inside of Detroit. It's taking the action of law by governments to lower those rates.
Quote:
My argument isn't for discrimination in general. All I am saying is that, discrimination for good reasons is rewarded, and discrimination for bad reasons is punished through competition in a free market.
Except when you have a bunch of racist hillbillies. The free-market isn't a cure-all. It only provides power to those with the biggest pocket-books, or to those with a shared goal. A purely free-market will suffer the same problem as a pure democracy--tyranny of the majority.
Quote:
I think there are a variety of reasons a group of people might discriminate for good reasons. And while skin color isn't one of them, I do feel like culture and religion could be beneficial ways of discriminating. I think diversity in general destroys communities, and my feelings on the issue have been confirmed by scientific research.
So to build stronger and happier communities, there is some benefit to being able to discriminate. But if the discrimination is for bad reasons, then their community should fail.
I have to say this is so underhandedly racist, it's hard to sit here without just laughing. First and foremost, humans are largely social animals. We benefit when we support one another. What you're suggesting, social Darwinism, is morally despicable. We shouldn't tie our selves down to such harsh restrictions.
Quote:
I said, at certain points in the past, as many as 1/3rd of the citizens in many states were non-citizens. In fact, even today in Los Angeles, about 1/3rd of the population are non-citizens. According to this website about 4.6 millions non-citizen adults live in the Los Angeles area(that doesn't include children). And in 12 cities in the Los Angeles area non-citizens are a majority of the population.
The argument is, should these people have the right to vote? Well, in some areas they are already having that discussion. And if you go into the past, there were many parts of the country that allowed non-citizens to vote, even in federal elections. But that was the nature of independent states. Where the people of each state had their own voice, and could make policies that were a reflection of the values of the people of their states. Just like France does its own thing and Germany does its own thing, Texas did its own thing and New York did its own thing.
That's up to the state. There are a lot of non-citizens who pay taxes but have no control over how those taxes are used.
Quote:
Without the 14th amendment, we go back to the nation the framers created.
That is beyond idiotic. No, we wouldn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The Founding Fathers developed a structure of government by which people were to free, and the government had a responsibility to protect that freedom. That theme is espoused repeatedly in the federalist papers--a strong central government in the interest of the people.
The 14th amendment serves this purpose. They would approve of such, if they weren't busy owning people.
Quote:
A union of independent states, who came together for the benefit of all. Not a single nation where individual states have little to no say.
The founding fathers supported a federalist government, which is evident by the fact that the Constitution was created after the Articles of the Confederation failed to provide a strong enough government. It was too weak, too decentralized, and had no teeth.
Here I am.
Grew up on a poor dairy farm. We milked 40 head. Hand me downs until I joined the service.
I think you have libertarian and Liberal confused.
I never met a libertarian that didnt work for all he had.
Big difference. Liberals need money to live and aren't as obsessed with the acquisition of wealth and rate theirs and others self worth by content of character. Conservatives live to need money and rate theirs and others self worth by the amount of income that is accumulated.
I told you I'd get to you. I lost your post though, couldn't remember which thread it was on. Okay, for the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macaw1981
OH MAN!! Just seen this and can not let this go unanswered. First of all you left off the very end of the poem "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Ever hear of someone taking something out of context. Here is the whole thing and I want you to take note of the very end.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
A door my friend is a entry point. No where does it say "screw the USA sovereignty and just sneak in and stay as long as you wish"!
The Golden Door no longer exists. Immigration policy pretty much stopped that--so all that is left is the bronze-tinted windows.
But the poem itself, and its most famous lines, are about the welcoming nature for all persons coming here to share in opportunity. We don't have that anymore.
Quote:
I don't want to control competition but want a country that has fair trade.
Fair-trade within or outside of its borders? You'll need to be more specific here, because free-market and free-trade are getting thrown around a lot, we need to be on the same wave-length. If you're talking fair-trade amongst our international neighbors, would you not agree than the United States has a vested interest in protecting U.S. business? How are its interest served by opening up our markets to foreign trade which can (and evidently has) undercut our our labor force.
Quote:
Immigration has NEVER been about what is best for the world's poor
Did I claim it was? Did you? I'm not sure where this is coming from.
Quote:
(although I do agree we should not take advantage of legal immigrants and illegals should be shipped out).
We're not really taking advantage of legal immigrations. They are, on average, wealthier and smarter than the average American. They can afford to come here in the first place and usually are sponsored to come here. They're taking advantage of American Opportunism.
As for those illegal immigrants, I've gone over that already. You may have missed it. A lot of them, a large majority of them undoubtedly, are migrant workers. They only stay here because of the tremendous difficulty of getting here in the first place, and then the risks of traveling to and fro.
We should be reforming our immigration policy to accommodate this workforce that we both demand, and is being abused. Making it easier for these migrant workers to come and go would significantly reduce the number that say over season.
Quote:
See video below to explain why in part. You have a twisted view of what a free market system is. A true "free market" would be something where companies can throw nuclear waste in the great lakes and spew cancer causing chemicals in the air...is that what you are for?
I'm not for a free-market at all. I prefer a regulated market where competition is promoted, but not at the expense of the people. I.E., forcing coal companies to filter their exhaust, et cetera.
Quote:
At the very same time we have to have laws for the best interest of the country on trade and people allowed in. This is very basic.
It's in our interest to reform immigration laws for migrant workers. FTAs allow us to exploit (beneficially) foreign markets, but they come at a potential cost of exploiting foreign nations at cost to its people.
Quote:
Now on to the drug cartels. Fine. We make pot legal. More people get hooked on coke. The cartels then shift their effort to make cocaine, meth and others to fill the market. Do we make meth and coke legal? I am the son of a mother who was crippled by a drunk driver so please excuse me when I say I have no problem with people frying their own brains. But if you think that making drugs legal is going to solve this without shifting problems else where, you are living in a delusion.
Ah, yes we make drugs legal. All of them. Things like methamphetamine were created because of the difficulty in importing and growing natural highs. As long as you have an illicit substance, you'll have an underground market exploiting it. The Prohibition era saw the explosion of organized crime in the United States.
And you'll take note that alcohol is currently legal. Drunk Drivers still happen. We can (and have) been fighting that with education about those dangers. Peer pressure is pretty effective. Regulating rec-drugs in the same way we regulate alcohol would have a pretty similar effect.
And, by legalizing drugs, we turn drug addictions into a medical problem, not a criminal problem. This means people actually get help, instead of just spending 2\3s of their year in and out of jail. The benefits of legalization of drugs are long. Cannabis is just the first step.
Quote:
The border wall. No one is saying a border wall alone will stop illegal entry by illegal immigrants, drug cartels, terrorists. But let me ask you a question. If I have you run 300 ft is it more difficult with nothing in the way or 2 50ft fences in the way? Again with more cameras, sensors, border patrol, unmanned aircraft etc it can be done.
But at what cost? We can eliminate pretty much all of these problems by reforming our laws instead of spending tons of money on useless ****. The TSA plays a cat and mouse game with would-be terrorists, and it's cause nothing but headache and trouble. Every terrorist in recent memory has been caught by a vigilant public, not the TSA.
Quote:
We do in Area 51 and we secure borders around the world. Securing the ports and borders is something that the feds have a responsiblity to do! (Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution).
But we're securing the borders against an enemy we literally created. Drug cartels? It's because we have a blackmarket for drugs. Illegal immigrants? It's because we don't have reasonable laws for migrant workers which we require. Terrorists? Well, such an abstract concept, but what makes you think the only way for them to come in is through the Mexican border?
Quote:
"Better to just legalize and bring that industry into the United States."
Right because the system they have in Mexico, China, etc works so well for most of the people right? Your ideas are a death sentence for the middle class of the USA. You are either super rich or don't understand.
How is legalizing drugs and creating an entirely new industry in the United States a death sentence to the middle-class? That requires quite a bit more explanation.
Quote:
"We have lots of work, just too many people who aren't qualified for them. Thousands of skilled trade positions are available because most of the people out of work don't have that kind of training. Let's try focusing on getting our public educated first instead of worrying about the fruit-pickers."
You can not be serious! We hear that "these are jobs American won't do because they are jobs beneath most Americans". Now we hear from you and others we have to bring in more skilled workers because the USA does not have enough skilled workers to fill those jobs! Are you fricking serious? You can't have it both ways!
Ah, actually you can indeed have it both ways. I enjoy my cake.
We have a lot of work that is "beneath" American laborers. I'm not saying all Americans won't pick cherries during the summer, but because American citizens are legally protected persons, demand livable wages, have a variety of safety nets, and a high standard of living, picking cherries isn't worth the effort.
Where as, an illegal immigrant might live two families to an apartment, have no safety nets, will work for less than minimum wage, and has no where legally to go if something goes wrong. Because illegals have no safety nets, they actually have to work for a living. They can't just quit their job and live with their parents or go on UI.
And then, we have the other spectrum. We have a lot of skilled trades--plumbers, electricians, artisans, etc--which require experience and training, but very few Americans already have that training and\or experience, and because of economic hardship, can't afford to retrain. We have lots of unemployed persons without the means to re-educate and re-train for the jobs we do have. For that, we need concentrated government assistance to get the American Public back to work. It can be in the way of direct payments for schooling, it can be in the way of training via Public Works projects, or other concepts. But recovery is going to take a hell of a lot longer the more we keep enacting austerity measures and cutting spending. You can't cut spending and cut revenue to get yourself our of a hole. You need to increase spending, notably social programs, to support people in times of need. And you need to increase revenue. Best way to do that is getting people back to work. Reagan said it--you spend your way out of a deficit.
Big difference. Liberals need money to live and aren't as obsessed with the acquisition of wealth and rate theirs and others self worth by content of character. Conservatives live to need money and rate theirs and others self worth by the amount of income that is accumulated.
The free movement of people through borders is a free market principle. I find it hypocritical why some who boast about free market this and free market that when they are the same ones who wouldn't throw a fit of an idea of opening up our borders.
Why ask this question? Why not go do some research and find an answer as to why people don't want the flood gates opened.
In theory, with a completely laissez-faire economy, one company would eventually own everything. The regulations are in place to keep these super corporations from becoming so powerful that they are able to destroy all their competition and be able to effectively decide how much a good cost. People who are for a completely laissez-faire economy seem to think that it'll just mean every business will always be on equal footing, but that isn't even close to true. With no anti-trust laws, unions, or safety regulations, we'll be back to children operating heavy machinery for 20 hours a day at 10 cents an hour for some some corporation that can charge whatever they want for whatever they are making because they've bought out or run all their competition out of the market.
Libertarians now define the free-market as one that involves only capitalism, and not corporatism, which is the term used to segment off all of the bad things that can happen in capitalism so as to avoid having to admit that capitalism has flaws. So yes, they do. The free market is perfect, because if it starts to malfunction, it automatically ceases to be the free market.
The free movement of people through borders is a free market principle. I find it hypocritical why some who boast about free market this and free market that when they are the same ones who wouldn't throw a fit of an idea of opening up our borders.
It's all about the welfare state, my friend. This issue is very much like the war on drugs. I'm as anti-drug war as they come. If people want to do drugs it's their business. But if I have to pay the bill for their rehab and SSI, now it's my business, and I'm cheering on the DEA.
Likewise with immigration. If people want to come here and share in the American dream, great. But when 90% of Somalis in my region are on food stamps, now I want a crackdown on immigration.
We can have a free society or a welfare state. We cannot have both.--Robert Higgs.
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.
