Jump to content

Libertarian Issues


Kheldane

Recommended Posts

Fair enough. Now that we've established that you (currently) have no objections to libertarianism, then you may begin voting libertarin this election term and help realize our mutual goal of less government. :) Also, you should spread the word about libertarian ideas whenever you get the chance.

Ok, I think you're being sarcastic here, because I would hope that while I've expressed the fact that I share many beliefs about government with libertarians, I have very strong objections to some specifics of the Libertarian Party platform. Does that mean I won't vote for a libertarian candidate? Well, I won't if he mirrors the things I object to, but I could definitely see myself voting for a libertarian candidate given the right cicumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why not indoctrinate when kids will receive indoctrination in any case ? It's all indoctrination.

Agreed! Let them choose their path when their old enough, yes. But kids are kids - they need guidance!!

Ok, I think you're being sarcastic here, because I would hope that while I've expressed the fact that I share many beliefs about government with libertarians, I have very strong objections to some specifics of the Libertarian Party platform. Does that mean I won't vote for a libertarian candidate? Well, I won't if he mirrors the things I object to, but I could definitely see myself voting for a libertarian candidate given the right cicumstances.

I wasn't at all being sarcastic, seriously. I thought I was addressing one of your objections, but since you made it clear you don't object (which, I thank you for being patient with my pre-emptive argument) then I figured we had surmounted the biggest hurdles. Please elaborate on your very strong objections...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we're somehow not communicating, Kheldane. I very much apologize if I haven't made my views clear. Firstly, let me be as clear as I can be when I say that I neither agree nor disagree with your argument on the legal status of drug use, and that your arguments against my possible objections are not objections that I have raised with you. While I recognize that it is important that I have a viewpoint on this issue, there are other matters that I feel are more important that I am trying to educate myself on. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm ducking the issue to you, but I don't expect I'll be looking deeply into this issue any time soon.

Secondly, as I stated before my two biggest issues with the Libertarian Party (at least that I'm aware of) are their incorrect statement that all men are sovereign in all they do, and their allowance of abortion. Abortion is murder, and I will support no candidate whom I know will not fight to stop every single abortion.

Again, as I have said more than once in this thread, I share many political views with libertarians, have voted for a libertarian candidate in the past (though for poor reasons), and would consider voting libertarian in the future provided the candidate has a 100% pro-life stance, by which I mean that he will oppose all abortions through the legal system as well as in his own personal beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, as I stated before my two biggest issues with the Libertarian Party (at least that I'm aware of) are their incorrect statement that all men are sovereign in all they do, and their allowance of abortion. Abortion is murder, and I will support no candidate whom I know will not fight to stop every single abortion.

Oh, I didn't realize your issue with the "man is sovereign over himself" principle was a major objection, I thought you were just mentioning it as an minor nuisance. What exactly do you object to with that statement (bearing in mind that they mean sovereign in terms of government only)? I hope you don't take the libertarian party platform to be a declaration of how one should live and I hope you don't believe those who vote libertarian necessarily apply the party platform to all aspects of their life, or avail themselves of all the freedoms they defend. The party platorm is not a declaration of personal principles that encompases the entirety of one's philosophical outlook on life. It merely relates to one's attitudes about the role of government. I might be an excellent example: I've never smoked or used drugs, but I ferociously defend other people's right to do so because I believe freedom is essential for a prosperous and peaceful society. So what specific activities that would be undertaken under the "sovereignty" banner do you object to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ It's a major objection for me because it is theologically incorrect. Would it stop me from voting for a libertarian candidate? Doubtful because I doubt that a libertarian candidate would use that particular phrase to articulate his views on liberty. However, it is in the party platform, so it would make it difficult for me to wholeheartedly support the party in general. Perhaps the party should consider removing that langauge from their platform. That issue combined with their abortion stance is what's keeping me away at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ It's a major objection for me because it is theologically incorrect.

It's not theologically incorrect because it's not a theologic statement. I don't know exactly why they chose the stupid wording they chose on their website or party platform, but I believe they are trying to say people have the right to destroy their own lives (i.e. people have the right to smoke, do drugs, make poor financial decisions, and go to hell) as long as it doesn't affect others in a violent way. Nothing in the platform (and you really must grasp this) tells anyone how they *should* live. Libertarianism is concerned with government affairs. So I'm not sure how you construed that statement to mean all libertarians must be athiest or reject god, but it doesn't mean that. When they say sovereign overthemselves, they mean their physical body. Not their very being, or soul, which would be a question of theology. Doesn't the bible even reference that people should take care of their bodies, that the body is gods work and should be taken care of? Well, if a person is in a position to affect the quality of their body, they must be sovereign over it. If they have no decision making ability because it has been taken by government, then they're not completely sovereign over their body anymore. Libertarians are saying exactly that: A person's personal and religious beliefs should be their only guidelines about how to use their body, not government edict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm not sure how you construed that statement to mean all libertarians must be athiest or reject god, but it doesn't mean that.

Kheldane, I'm really growing impatient with your habit of putting words in my mouth. I never stated anything like your quote above, nor do I believe that. I simply disagree with the wording in the party platform, and for that reason I would find it difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to support the Libertarian Party platform financially. As I have repeatedly said before in this thread, on a case by case basis I would consider voting for a libertarian candidate. I will not, however, under any circumstances tell you that I will always vote libertarian. I'm interested more in the principles of the candidate than his party. Also, as I stated much earlier in the thread, I understand what I think is the intent behind their statement on individual sovereignty, yet I can't support the notion contained in the words themselves. Again, as I have repeatedly stated that may or may not stop me from voting libertarian in certain circumstances. It would depend entirely on the candidate himself, as well as the available alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, I think I can help calm this down with a conservative rant!!!

In all seriousness, I'm with RJ. If forced to choose, I would claim to be a republican; however, I typically refer to myself as conservative. I vote for the candidate who best reflects my views. Typically yes, it is a republican, but I have voted for Democrats (my first vote was cast for a Georgia democrat), republican, and independent. I haven't seen any serious libertarian, constitution, or green party candidates in my short voting history (I voted for Bush twice!), but I certainly am not going to vote based on the little letter next to their name.

I was going to vote for Greg Tucker, a dem for mayor, in the recent Rutherford election. However, it was revealed that even after all his ad's about Ernest Burgess being in the back pocket of developers, turns out Tucker's own campaign manager WAS A DEVELOPER. I couldn't vote for him after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kheldane, I'm really growing impatient with your habit of putting words in my mouth. I never stated anything like your quote above, nor do I believe that. I simply disagree with the wording in the party platform, and for that reason I would find it difficult (though perhaps not impossible) to support the Libertarian Party platform financially. As I have repeatedly said before in this thread, on a case by case basis I would consider voting for a libertarian candidate. I will not, however, under any circumstances tell you that I will always vote libertarian.

Woah! Easy there, man. I'm doing the best I can to try and "nail a block of jello the wall", so to speak. I'm not sure if you're purposefully being evasive or not, but you don't seem to be sincere about putting your political philosophy to the test. You object to sovereignty over one's body, but you have no opinion about drugs. You object to the theologically incorrect wording of their platform, but you don't think the wrongly worded statement is against god. What excatly is your strong objection to that one phrase?

You say it's theologically incorrect, so explain why. I see from your other post that you believe god is sovereign over all things, even over one's body. OK, I get that in the context of deciding how to act personally. But you've yet to even approach the subject of how god being sovereign over all translates into government having the right to be sovereign over all. This is politics - this is about government. So if you're going to let religion affect your politics you need to start talking about how your religion translates into political beliefs. You need to tell me how your religion allows you to be sovereign over your neighbor. Because that's the debate here. The libertarians say you are not soverein over your neighbor. ....And that makes you uncomfortable because they way they've chosen to word it makes you think they are saying: "Not only are you not sovereign over your neighbor, but neither is god"? Is that what your beef with the wording is?

I apologize again in advance if I have put words into your mouth, but you're not articulating the functioning of your philosophy in a way that I can understand it, so I'm trying to help the process along. PLEASE let me know if I have, yet again, guessed wrong. I've never heard this objection to libertarian views before and I'm extremely eager to see if there's any meat behind it... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kheldane, you've brought up several things in your last post, and it may take some time for me to get back to you on all of it. First of all let me suggest that instead of trying to argue against what you think I believe, you simply ask questions. In a recent example, you could have asked, "So, do you mean to say that you construe the LP platform to mean x?" If you proceed in that manner I can answer your question without first having to defend myself against things I never said or meant to imply. I really feel that will help the conversation go more smoothly, and I think it'll also help you have a better understanding of what I believe. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd prefer it if you ask me what I mean or believe instead of assuming.

You and I agree on a great many things, and I don't wish for this conversation to have an adversarial tone to it. Furthermore I appreciate you challenging me to form opinions on issues I rarely consider, but I'm truly not ready to begin to state an opinion on the drugs issue. If that's unnacceptable to you, I'm sorry. In the last two years I've experienced a pretty major shift in the way I think politically, and I'm working to educate myself on a number of issues. I have to prioritize, and right now the drugs issue is low on my list. I hope at some point in the future I'll be able speak from an educated standpoint on the issue, but it may not be for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I guess what I'm saying is that I'd prefer it if you ask me what I mean or believe instead of assuming.....and I don't wish for this conversation to have an adversarial tone to it.

Dude, I'm not trying to be adversarial, acusatory, or assumtive in this discussion. I'm asking the question, so give us an answer::: What is your theological objection to the LP statement about sovereignty!?

Again, the question is this: What is your theological objection to the LP statement about sovereignty!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've responded to a comment in this thread below:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.ph...st&p=519309

^Maybe some perspective needs to be stated here. Illegals are just that, illegal. Meaning, they have no business in this country. They are criminals breaking the law, and insult the good name of every citizen of this country who came here to this country legally and followed the rules. You wouldn't tolerate someone breaking into your home and taking up residence, would you ? When you've got upwards of 10,000,000+ of them, we call that a full-scale invasion. I don't particularly care what their race is, it still is the same if they're White, Black, Brown, Yellow, or Green & Purple Polka-Dot. And, btw, I favor the highest criminal penalties for the EMPLOYERS. Maybe when they start drawing some serious prison sentences for encouraging this slave labor, a large number of these folks will deport themselves.

You say they have no business here, and then in the same post you say they are employed by local employers? That sounds to me like the do have business here! If they are coming and working, then they are helping this country function. If they are keeping operating costs lower than they would be (labor costs), then they are helping this country compete with other low-cost producers in eastern europe, asia, and latin america.

I would like to know why you favor criminal penalties for employers. What you should favor is a guest worker program or dramatically increased legal immigration quotas so these employers can get the employees they need legally. The employers are the victims here - victims of government policy. It is the government's fault the employers can only hire illegals - because the government made them illegal. The employer needs manual labor (and lots of it) totally independently of the whole immigration debate. Those same employers you want to penalize are the ones keeping you fed, clothed, and housed!!!! Where are you going to live, what are you going to eat, what are you going to wear if employers can't get enough employees to make the products that you demand? Will you make it all yourself?

If immigrants are increasing the supply of labor and holding down wages, that is a good thing. That helps hold down widespread price inflation across the board. That helps prevent shortages (of labor) and keeps business profits high (profits that are spent or re-invested elsewhere in the economy). It's not the goverment's responsibility to keep all americans employed. Government just protects you from violence. If you can't get a job, that's your problem and your problem alone. Don't look to the government for help.

And finally, you are a Son of an Immigrant (:)), not an insult, just a fact. We all are - well maybe great,great,great grandsons of Immigrants....but decendants of immigrants at least. My g,g,g, grandfather steped off the boat from ireland onto the shores of North Carolina. When did he become american? Answer: the minute foot hit ground. And in my mind, america is still like that - or should be. If you're willing to come here, live peacably, work hard, carry your own weight, then you're american. I find the whole idea of "legal immigration" to be inconsistet with the concept of america. How could a people show up in North America, kill all the natives, and then call it their "Homeland"? It's total bullcrap. It's america - land of immigrants and land of opportunity. Opportunity because we have freedom here - not just opportunity because we're born here. Being born here means you're entitled to jack-squat. Well, you're entitled to protection from violence, and you can own private property, but other than that - all the risks of life are on you. And all the rewards as well. That's what makes it great... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your argument? Illegal immigrants from Mexico do not consider themselves Americans. Your great grand papy came here and assimilated (he stopped waving his home country flag, he learned english, got a job, paid ALL his taxes, didn't send most of his money back to his former country, and generally contributed to the great good of American)

The Mexicans are coming here for a J-O-B. They still wave their country flag (look at the pictures from their rally's), most don't learn english, they don't pay any income taxes, they send almost all their money to Mexico, and they will leave if they can find a better job in Mexico. Now you can see why I get angry when people compare these immigrants with my families immigrants.

We shouldn't be as upset with the illegals as we are with the business owners who employee them. There is already a process of requesting foreign workers if a business needs them. The problem is then they would have to pay minimum wages, and pay taxes. That causes a problem because there are already americans who will work at those wages, so there is no cost savings to the employer. That's why the employer needs to be fined. There is a legal channel and they choose not to follow it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with your argument? Illegal immigrants from Mexico do not consider themselves Americans. Your great grand papy came here and assimilated (he stopped waving his home country flag, he learned english, got a job, paid ALL his taxes, didn't send most of his money back to his former country, and generally contributed to the great good of American)

The Mexicans are coming here for a J-O-B. They still wave their country flag (look at the pictures from their rally's), most don't learn english, they don't pay any income taxes, they send almost all their money to Mexico, and they will leave if they can find a better job in Mexico. Now you can see why I get angry when people compare these immigrants with my families immigrants.

So they are just here for a job? So what, I say. From an economic standpoint, it's irrelevant. Even if they speak spanish and wave mexican flags, as long as the employer thinks the value of their work is > the value of the dollars he's paying them, then the employer has profited from the transaction. And it's a forgone conclusion that the employer thinks that: otherwise he wouldn't hire mexicans. This country is not at all affected by minorities who show strong loyalty to their home countries. You do a great disservice to the many italian and irish americans who still harbor strong loyalty to their ancestral lands, and believe me, there are many of them. As long as a person is a productive member of society, it doesn't matter where their loyalties lie because loyalties don't factor into whether or not their workproduct is valuable to consumers. If I hate everything about america but provide quality plumbing services all over nashville that meet consumer's needs - - what is the end result?? A whole lot of satisfied consumers and one angry plumber - from an economic standpoint though - attitude means nothing.

How does it affect you if immigrants are still loyal to their home countries? What are the tangible or economic effects to you?

Now you mentioned tax evasion: That is already a separate crime, and it involves a whole 'nother set of arguments - so let's not confuse the issue. I'm against tax evasion in all forms, but you can't say illegal immigration is the cause of tax evasion, public dishonesty is mostly the cause, and excessive taxes also are part of the cause.

Employers are right to look for ways around minimum wage laws though - those laws are immoral and not consistent with freedom. All minimum wages should be repealed immediately. Again, this is a whole 'nother debate, so let's deal with the whole "Here, but not american" argument first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I'm not trying to be adversarial, acusatory, or assumtive in this discussion. I'm asking the question, so give us an answer::: What is your theological objection to the LP statement about sovereignty!?

Again, the question is this: What is your theological objection to the LP statement about sovereignty!?

Thanks, Kheldane, I really appreciate your understanding. I apologize for not getting back to you yet. I will be glad to post a detailed response when I have time. May I ask what type of argument you're looking for from me on this point? My intent would be to show God's sovereignty from a Biblical standpoint. Was that the direction you were going with your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kheldane, I'm not sure where to begin addressing your points, though Rocky Top Buzz did an admirable job. You do demonstrate one of the serious problems I have with Libertarianism and its "anything goes" mentality (reminding me of the time I participated in a Government/U.S. Senate Sim back several years ago, and as an "experiment", the Libertarians decided to hijack the Republican caucus, and in one of the most legendary moments in internet sim history, forced this real-life Conservative Republican to switch to the Democrats. Quite telling that I could stomach caucusing with the pro-Kos nutroots crowd to rabid, unhinged Libertarians).

But back to your points, yes I do say ILLEGALS have no business here, period. There are reasons why laws exist, and immigration laws are designed to prevent the world from flooding into the U.S. en masse, to the point that we cannot handle them. Every single solitary ILLEGAL in the U.S. needs to be returned to their country of origin, if not by force, than by their own accord.

I favor the highest possible criminal penalties for employers for encouraging and proliferating ILLEGAL SLAVE labor and creating an environment that states that it is A-OK for millions to sneak right on in and "don't pay those laws any mind." In case we hadn't noticed, we're also at war, and this charming little invasion also sets up a jim dandy opportunity for the Islamofascist terrorists to come right on in along with everybunny else.

Unless people coming in can JUSTIFY a reason to be here ("I'm from Mexico/Timbuktu/the Martian Colonies, and I need a job" is NOT a reason, there are plenty of jobs to be had there, and if there are none, they can create them using a little concept called "entrepreneurialism"), one that comes to mind are people fleeing legitimate political persecution (Cuba). As RTB stated, we also have that added problem that a lot of these folks coming in have no interest in assimilating. They want to keep their entire culture separate and apart, and their language, as well, and that sort of Balkanization is going to have horrendous consequences. I'm sorry folks, but that kind of "diversity" is how civil wars erupt. I favor considerable decreases in current LEGAL immigration now until we can fully absorb the folks already here.

You are correct in that we are all descended from immigrants (even the Native Americans are actually Asian immigrants). My grandfather was the last to arrive here in the 1920s from Scotland. My earliest ancestor here was a g-g-g+ grandfather who was a paid Hessian assassin/mercenary working for the British during the Revolution, and in a very gutsy move, opted to stay in New Jersey after it was over, even as many of his comrades were being picked off (murdered) by the Colonials in retaliation. Another g-g-g grandfather, a Scots-Irish, arrived, like yours, in North Carolina, moved right here to Middle Tennessee (Wilson County) around the turn of the 19th century, was recruited by General Jackson and fought under him at the Battle of New Orleans (alas, he'd be the last of my family to set foot in Tennessee until I and my parents in the '70s -- the lousy rocky soil here in the midstate saw this farmer move up to the more fertile soil of Illinois). My point is that nobody in my family "snuck in", and for everyone who followed the rules to come to this country, it is insulting to lump them in with people who feel they don't have to pay any mind to the laws. I know Libertarians aren't too enamored of laws in general, which is why too much of their philosophy comes off as classic Marxism/Anarchism to me.

As I said, if these folks want to become Americans, they can get in line like everybody else, the ones who followed the rules. If following the rules are too much of a "problem", perhaps they need to look elsewhere for more anarchistic societies that will suit their needs, but that's not the America I know, nor the one I wish to live in. I suspect the bulk of Americans agree with my position, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask what type of argument you're looking for from me on this point? My intent would be to show God's sovereignty from a Biblical standpoint. Was that the direction you were going with your question?

Take whatever direction you want to take....

Just make it fast, we've spent 5 or 6 rounds of posting now just to get down to this question.

EDIT: ReliantJ, be serious!! Why in the world would I dispute god's sovereignty over man? This whole post is about libertarian politics. Politics deals with questions of government. Libertarianism focuses on the extent of government's powers over man. The LP party line you referenced relates to government - nothing else. So since you've said you disagree with it, you need to either:

A) Say "Oh, i misunderstood, I thought it was saying man is sovereign overhimself, even to the exclusion of god. Now I see that I have no objection to it since the statement just relates to government."

or

B) Say "Oh, i misunderstood, I thought it was saying man is sovereign overhimself, even to the exclusion of god. However, I still object to the statement because I believe government should have control over man's peaceful activities for the purpose of guiding him towards heavenly salvation."

If you choose A, this discussion is over. If you choose B, prepare for the disaster :D.... Just kidding, but seriously, I've had that argument and it always ends badly for the Option-B person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they are just here for a job? So what, I say

kheldane, you just made the argument that we should imbrace them because this country was built on immigrants! Those immigrants obviously loved this country because they went through hell and high water (literally) to get here. If Mexicans were assimilating into our soceity, I might have a different viewpoint. They don't have to give up their heritage as neither European or African's have given up their heritage to become an American. But we can all communicate and work together for the better good of America; Mexicans wave their flag and speak spanish!

Employers value illegals low wages more than they value their work. If employers had to pay taxes and overtime for these employees like any other American, there's no way we would have the problem we have today.

And another thing, when these illegal immigrants do become citizens through amnesty, most will be living below the poverty level. You know what that means? It means WELFARE FOR 20 MILLION MORE PEOPLE! That's about as anti-libertarian as it comes, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are reasons why laws exist, and immigration laws are designed to prevent the world from flooding into the U.S. en masse, to the point that we cannot handle them. ...

.....My earliest ancestor here was a g-g-g+ grandfather who was..... My point is that nobody in my family "snuck in"....

.... Libertarians aren't too enamored of laws in general, which is why too much of their philosophy comes off as classic Marxism/Anarchism to me....

....I suspect the bulk of Americans agree with my position, too....

Please explain to me how we cannot handle more immigrants. What exactly can't we handle? I think we could "Handle" about 3 million a year, maybe more. What aspect of the economy would disintegrate because of more consumers or more workers or more businesses being added to the market?

You're ancestors didn't have to "sneak in" because no one was trying to keep tabs or quotas on who showed up. And it should be the same today. This country will never reach some imaginary equilibrium where we have "enough" people. We should always welcome more participants to this great experiment in freedom.

And I would just like to highlght, for the benifit of samsonh, ReliantJ, and others, your use of the term "Marxism/Anarchism". I spent at least 5 minutes marveling at that term...and laughing. That's like saying someone has "Hindu/Islamic" beliefs, or a car was painted a "Blackish-White" color. The two philosophies could not be more dichotomous.

...And if the bulk of americans agree with your position that should seriously cause you to re-evaluate your beliefs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kheldane, you're muddying the issue of immigration when you insist upon not seeing the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL. I'm sorry that you take this issue so lightly and think we can take in limitless amounts of people without realizing there will be profound consequences for such actions, and will lose the country we have now. Your encouragement of anarchy is highly disturbing.

As for my use of "Marxism/Anarchism", I said it with a straight face with no levity intended. I intend it much in the same way that "Peace Activists" are amongst the most pathologically violent individuals I've ever come across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ReliantJ, be serious!! Why in the world would I dispute god's sovereignty over man?

I have endeavored to be nothing other than serious throughout this entire discussion. By your question which I have quoted above, it would seem that I don't have to make a Biblical case for God's sovereignty to you. I apologize for my confusion over how you felt about that. I guess I'm just still having trouble understanding your position. As I said earlier in the conversation, I think I understand what the LP means by the statement in question, I'm just very uncomfortable with the wording. My question to you would be, how do you know exactly what was indended by the author or authors of that statement? And no, B would not be my answer either. :) Frankly I think in general the view that you have on the nature and purpose of government is pretty similar to my own: that government exists to defend our God-given rights. When it oversteps its bounaries, it becomes understandably ineficient. Civil government, church government, and family government all have their spheres of authority and purpose. Please correct me if I have misstated your take on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fieldmarshallj,

I think you should look up Marxism and anarchism. :)

Also can you enlighten us as to the profound consequences of immigration? Heaven forbid they might speak Spanish in front of you. I sure have noticed a HUGE decrease in the quality of my life with the influx of immigrants ;). If more come such they might do such horrible things as keep the cost of goods low, or keep a love of the country they came from. Those horrible illegals. Ship them back. Seriously why all the hate towards Mexicans. They are improving your quality of life and you hate them. I do not understand this. I have not seen a single valid reason for wanting them gone other than "they are committing a felony, get them out". Please tell me why Mexicans coming here is going to harm my quality of life. That is all I ask right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fieldmarshallj,

I think you should look up Marxism and anarchism. :)

Also can you enlighten us as to the profound consequences of immigration? Heaven forbid they might speak Spanish in front of you. I sure have noticed a HUGE decrease in the quality of my life with the influx of immigrants ;). If more come such they might do such horrible things as keep the cost of goods low, or keep a love of the country they came from. Those horrible illegals. Ship them back. Seriously why all the hate towards Mexicans. They are improving your quality of life and you hate them. I do not understand this. I have not seen a single valid reason for wanting them gone other than "they are committing a felony, get them out". Please tell me why Mexicans coming here is going to harm my quality of life. That is all I ask right now.

Thanks, I'm quite aware of Marxism/Anarchism/Libertarianism, it's why I cited that there is very little difference between them. All are recipes for disaster, as the 20th century is a testament to. As for the rest of your post, since you opted to trot out the tired old race card, the old Stalinist PC trick to silence opposing viewpoints, I'll take it you're not interested in a mature discussion of the subject of legal vs. illegal immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite interested in a mature discussion. I see no ill effects of illegal immigration in my life. You should know that I am the least political correct person I know. That post was not meant to trick you into anything. The fact that it made you think that speaks volumes though.

Fieldmarshall, I really enjoy your posts on other subjects, and am actually quite surprised you have taken this stance on this issue. I believe this country should allow far more legal immigrants. I believe that illegal immigration will never stop if employers continue hiring illegals. I believe employers will continue hiring them because they typically work hard and well, something that many Americans seem to not do anymore. Employers believe illegals are good for their bottom line, creating more profits, capital which can be invested further. I don't care one way or another how you feel about illegals, I won't deny that many of them could care less about this country. I want them here because it is good for my wallet, thats the only reason. Now tell me why I shouldn't want them here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.