As a Libertarian I believe very strongly in individual liberty and the free market. As such, I am very pro-immigration. I believe that if you want to come here and work you should be free to do so. There isn't a lot of internal debate for me, but this is still a controversial topic, so I am going to weigh in on a few points where the Democrats and Republicans should be if they believed what they said.
Immigrants Steal Jobs from Americans.
Republican- You believe in the Free Market and Competition only if doesn't apply to you?! Get real. If you are honest when you argue for De-Regulation of business, then you don't want the Government to interfere in negotiating contracts or hiring. You should recognize that competition benefits everyone, and even well-intentioned government interference (Like Immigration laws) hurt the economy.
Democrats- You should be okay with the Government trying to protect other peoples jobs, but the laws hurt those of Hispanic descent more than any other demographic. You should be very bothered by this.
Immigrants Receive Welfare/Money/Public Support -
Republicans- If your anger is with the welfare system in general then this could almost be a valid complaint. The problem is that "Welfare" accounts for less than 1% of State and Federal budgets. If you think that 1% of your taxes is too much to spend on welfare, then you should argue against WELFARE. It shouldn't influence your immigration decisions.
Democrats- Should be in favor of Welfare. If you aren't, then you probably should change your vote.
Both- There is a persistent myth that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. Immigrants pay sales tax, cell phone tax, car registration taxes, etc. The only taxes that immigrants don't generally pay is Federal Income Tax. This is probably a net loss for them. If there pay is "on the books" then due to their low income, they are probably losing refunds.
Immigrants cause crime-
Both- First of all, most people argue that, BY DEFINITION, entering the country illegally is a crime, so illegal immigrants are criminals. This is true, it is also true that the Founding Fathers were BY DEFINITION criminals. They all committed treason.
Both Part 2- If your argument is that illegal immigrants cause other crimes, then the numbers don't back you up. Think about it logically, if you are at risk of being deported for any legal offense then you may commit, then you are strongly incentivized not to commit crimes. Once people are here legally their population is no more or less likely to commit crimes than any other group (whites, blacks etc) of the same income level. Crime is much more related to income level than legal status.
Their are other arguments and rebuttals out there, but I don't want to get into every single one.
The main concern is that there is some very strong opposition to immigration. The opposition is armed with nothing but myths. The economic gains seem to clearly lie with allowing free immigration (especially if you believe in free markets), but the major concern for people in the US is supposed to be costs or economic toll.
Immigrants have always been reviled in this country. If it would be funnier if it wasn't tragic. No sooner does one group of people fight to gain acceptance here, only to immediately turn around and persecute the newest group.
This brings me to saddest thought. I worry that this fear of immigration is based on racism. I do not want that to be the case. I honestly want to believe that the other side of the argument has legitimate non-racist reasons for their beliefs. It is becoming harder to do so every day.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Healthcare Reform and the Constitution
There has been quite a lot said about the issue. I am not going to try rehashing every single argument, but I do want to touch on one.
-It is unconstitutional for the Government to make us buy Health Insurance.
This is a pretty tired point, but I have heard it, or variations of it, a lot. The government does require us to pay for things from time to time. While we may not immediately appreciate it, I am certain we can get used to have water, roads, etc.
Taxes that we pay go towards police salaries. We can get the benefit of police even if we don't contribute whatsoever into the system. (This is incredibly socialist by the way.)
Taxes that a lot of people pay fund the public education system. If you own property in the United States and don't want to support a government run socialistic program (public education) then you are SoL.
We are required to purchase auto insurance. Some people might answer we aren't required to purchase insurance unless we drive. The same applies for health care, if you don't want to live then you don't have to pay it.
In reality people like to throw out "it's unconstitutional!" when they don't have anything better to say. We have a body of people who spend their whole lives studying and dealing with these issues(the Supreme Court), and even they all rarely agree on anything. So to think that we can peruse our founding document and make empirical judgments is more than a little conceited. It is plain ignorant. Which is the real problem anyway.
-It is unconstitutional for the Government to make us buy Health Insurance.
This is a pretty tired point, but I have heard it, or variations of it, a lot. The government does require us to pay for things from time to time. While we may not immediately appreciate it, I am certain we can get used to have water, roads, etc.
Taxes that we pay go towards police salaries. We can get the benefit of police even if we don't contribute whatsoever into the system. (This is incredibly socialist by the way.)
Taxes that a lot of people pay fund the public education system. If you own property in the United States and don't want to support a government run socialistic program (public education) then you are SoL.
We are required to purchase auto insurance. Some people might answer we aren't required to purchase insurance unless we drive. The same applies for health care, if you don't want to live then you don't have to pay it.
In reality people like to throw out "it's unconstitutional!" when they don't have anything better to say. We have a body of people who spend their whole lives studying and dealing with these issues(the Supreme Court), and even they all rarely agree on anything. So to think that we can peruse our founding document and make empirical judgments is more than a little conceited. It is plain ignorant. Which is the real problem anyway.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Liberty
Liberty is a fascinating concept to me. I appreciate the ability to think for myself and to make my own decisions, and I hope all other human beings enjoy the same liberties.
It's funny how we act about our freedom. How some people believe the government has no right to tell them how to spend their money, but has every right to dictate their other personal choices. Or how the opposite is also true. Government should keep out of my personal business, but take money from people who have more than me to make my life better.
When I see this type of behavior I think it is hypocritical. It reminds me of the parent who says, "I don't mind what my child does, as long I approve."
It is easy to complain about the freedoms we feel that are being taken from us, and to immediately turn around and deny someone else the ability to do something because we think it is "wrong".
I think we all believe that we should be free, but we are uncomfortable with anything that is "different" from the norms or ideals we were raised with. Some things are obviously wrong. Theft, murder, etc are wrong in and of themselves. They are fundamentally wrong because they impede someone else's ability to act freely. But if there is a doubt as to whether people should have certain ability to chose, should we not err on the side of Liberty? If we were contemplating a tax hike, should we not consider people more able to choose for themselves how to spend that money? If we don't agree with someone's behaviour, should we not err on the side of their freedom as well?
Is it really freedom, if we are only free to do anything someone else says is ok?
It's funny how we act about our freedom. How some people believe the government has no right to tell them how to spend their money, but has every right to dictate their other personal choices. Or how the opposite is also true. Government should keep out of my personal business, but take money from people who have more than me to make my life better.
When I see this type of behavior I think it is hypocritical. It reminds me of the parent who says, "I don't mind what my child does, as long I approve."
It is easy to complain about the freedoms we feel that are being taken from us, and to immediately turn around and deny someone else the ability to do something because we think it is "wrong".
I think we all believe that we should be free, but we are uncomfortable with anything that is "different" from the norms or ideals we were raised with. Some things are obviously wrong. Theft, murder, etc are wrong in and of themselves. They are fundamentally wrong because they impede someone else's ability to act freely. But if there is a doubt as to whether people should have certain ability to chose, should we not err on the side of Liberty? If we were contemplating a tax hike, should we not consider people more able to choose for themselves how to spend that money? If we don't agree with someone's behaviour, should we not err on the side of their freedom as well?
Is it really freedom, if we are only free to do anything someone else says is ok?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Obama's Nobel Prize
A little while ago Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. The immediate reaction of people asking what he has done to deserve it was understandable. I have waited for someone to explain it rationally, but as of yet no one has.
A few people have made mention of it being for what he will do more than what he has done. This seems a little silly to me. He has reversed our policy of "no dialogue", he has supported the two state Israel option, and has made the decision to finish the nation building going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am confused as to what he has "to do". Apparently opening up dialogue with Iran isn't "doing" anything. Does he have to actually make up facts and invade a country to have "done" anything?
The award is a little premature, in my opinion, but I don't think it is completely unmerited like people pretend. Nominating Obama 12 days into his presidency and awarding him in the first year, is obviously an attempt to influence his decisions. If I lived outside the US I would be a little nervous too. Apparently, we can invade anyone we want and get away with it.
Obama has some major decisions with Afghanistan coming up, and it is obvious the Nobel Committee is trying to influence his decision, just like everyone else.
A few people have made mention of it being for what he will do more than what he has done. This seems a little silly to me. He has reversed our policy of "no dialogue", he has supported the two state Israel option, and has made the decision to finish the nation building going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am confused as to what he has "to do". Apparently opening up dialogue with Iran isn't "doing" anything. Does he have to actually make up facts and invade a country to have "done" anything?
The award is a little premature, in my opinion, but I don't think it is completely unmerited like people pretend. Nominating Obama 12 days into his presidency and awarding him in the first year, is obviously an attempt to influence his decisions. If I lived outside the US I would be a little nervous too. Apparently, we can invade anyone we want and get away with it.
Obama has some major decisions with Afghanistan coming up, and it is obvious the Nobel Committee is trying to influence his decision, just like everyone else.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Healthcare Reform
This is a super fun subject right now, so I decided to throw in my two cents.
Let me begin by saying that right now the discourse over health care is disgusting. Extremists on one side tell you that you are going to die, and the other says you will be broke. Fear mongering is, at best, unhealthy and morally repugnant.
Now then, what is the debate? Our government is currently discussing health care reform. One of the key components to this reform would be to add a public option to cover the uninsured. Do the uninsured deserve to be covered at all? I hope that if someone were to die because a hospital refused to treat them, on the grounds of it not being in their financial interest to do so, most people would be upset. I think most of us, believe that everyone should have access to some basic health care, and not be left to die if they cannot afford it.
So if we want everyone covered, is the public option a good idea? Rather than pretend to know the future, I will be looking at two examples of a public and private option in our current lives.
1. Police
Security is important. We need a system to enforce laws in order to have a productive and fair society. The police provide some basic protection for everyone, no matter our financial situation. The police are an example of a socialist program. It is a purely government program, and is paid by taxes. In addition to policemen there is a vibrant private sector; security guards, alarms, bodyguards etc. This private option provides additional coverage for those who need it.
2. Education
All children in the United States have access to the public school system. In addition to this Socialist, government-run institution there are private options. Tutors, private schools, additional materials, etc are available to those who are willing to pay an extra cost.
We tend to think that since we have free markets, it means we are a capitalist society. This is mostly true, however we have takes that pay for several socialist, government entities. It is true that in a free market society competition tends to make everyone better off. In reality, this is not always the case. A good example of a time when government intervention can stimulate the economy is a monopoly.
Whether or not you believe that the Education system or Justice system are perfect, I think you have to admit that they do a pretty damn good job. And even if they aren't perfect at least everyone is covered.
Let me begin by saying that right now the discourse over health care is disgusting. Extremists on one side tell you that you are going to die, and the other says you will be broke. Fear mongering is, at best, unhealthy and morally repugnant.
Now then, what is the debate? Our government is currently discussing health care reform. One of the key components to this reform would be to add a public option to cover the uninsured. Do the uninsured deserve to be covered at all? I hope that if someone were to die because a hospital refused to treat them, on the grounds of it not being in their financial interest to do so, most people would be upset. I think most of us, believe that everyone should have access to some basic health care, and not be left to die if they cannot afford it.
So if we want everyone covered, is the public option a good idea? Rather than pretend to know the future, I will be looking at two examples of a public and private option in our current lives.
1. Police
Security is important. We need a system to enforce laws in order to have a productive and fair society. The police provide some basic protection for everyone, no matter our financial situation. The police are an example of a socialist program. It is a purely government program, and is paid by taxes. In addition to policemen there is a vibrant private sector; security guards, alarms, bodyguards etc. This private option provides additional coverage for those who need it.
2. Education
All children in the United States have access to the public school system. In addition to this Socialist, government-run institution there are private options. Tutors, private schools, additional materials, etc are available to those who are willing to pay an extra cost.
We tend to think that since we have free markets, it means we are a capitalist society. This is mostly true, however we have takes that pay for several socialist, government entities. It is true that in a free market society competition tends to make everyone better off. In reality, this is not always the case. A good example of a time when government intervention can stimulate the economy is a monopoly.
Whether or not you believe that the Education system or Justice system are perfect, I think you have to admit that they do a pretty damn good job. And even if they aren't perfect at least everyone is covered.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran
What is happening in Iran?
I hope that this is a question that many people are asking themselves. Iran is a fascinating country that will have a lot of influence on our future. I am going to try to explain a little about what is going on, and hopefully shed some light on the situation.
The Past
Iran was called Persia for a long time. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed the middle east was carved up and divided how we know it today. Iran was ruled by the "Shah" or King until 1979ish when the Ayatollah took over. Ayatollah basically means "Leader" it is often translated as "Supreme Leader", but that is a little strong. The Ayatollah is a religeous leader as well as a political one. The US wasn't very happy with this regime change and we decided it would be in our best interest to fight them. So when Iraq invaded Iran we helped the Iraqis out with weapons, even thought they may have killed up to 100k Kurds living in Iraq. Iran was not a fan of US involvement and we have had our disagreements since. (Most notably the Hostage Crisis and Nuclear Enrichment concerns)
The Present
Iran had their presidential elections recently. Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi (A and M for short) A was president and very well controlled by the Ayatollah. M was his most popular challenger. Polls predicted it would be a very close race, but after counting hand ballots for a few hours A is declared the winner by a 66% majority. Most people seem to belive this a clear indication of fraud. People right and the Government of Iran is trying to quell the uprising.
The Future
Remember that because of protests and uprisings like what are going on now the regime changed hands in 1979. It took around ten years of revolts before the actual change occurred but this is interesting all the same. I hope that the people of Iran realize that now dictator holds power, and that the power is always in the hands of the masses. We may end up with a free and democratic Iran, and we may not only time will tell.
I hope that this is a question that many people are asking themselves. Iran is a fascinating country that will have a lot of influence on our future. I am going to try to explain a little about what is going on, and hopefully shed some light on the situation.
The Past
Iran was called Persia for a long time. After the Ottoman Empire collapsed the middle east was carved up and divided how we know it today. Iran was ruled by the "Shah" or King until 1979ish when the Ayatollah took over. Ayatollah basically means "Leader" it is often translated as "Supreme Leader", but that is a little strong. The Ayatollah is a religeous leader as well as a political one. The US wasn't very happy with this regime change and we decided it would be in our best interest to fight them. So when Iraq invaded Iran we helped the Iraqis out with weapons, even thought they may have killed up to 100k Kurds living in Iraq. Iran was not a fan of US involvement and we have had our disagreements since. (Most notably the Hostage Crisis and Nuclear Enrichment concerns)
The Present
Iran had their presidential elections recently. Ahmadinejad vs Mousavi (A and M for short) A was president and very well controlled by the Ayatollah. M was his most popular challenger. Polls predicted it would be a very close race, but after counting hand ballots for a few hours A is declared the winner by a 66% majority. Most people seem to belive this a clear indication of fraud. People right and the Government of Iran is trying to quell the uprising.
The Future
Remember that because of protests and uprisings like what are going on now the regime changed hands in 1979. It took around ten years of revolts before the actual change occurred but this is interesting all the same. I hope that the people of Iran realize that now dictator holds power, and that the power is always in the hands of the masses. We may end up with a free and democratic Iran, and we may not only time will tell.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Palin Letterman joke
There is some stuff going around about Letterman and Palin. I will attempt to clarify.
Letterman said "during the game Sarah Palin's daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. You can see how that would be awkward."
It was a joke. Mr Letterman was not saying that Sarah Palin's daughter was raped. He was not saying that he wants to have sex with the girl. I know that the 14 year old was the one at the game, but the joke obviously referred to the older daughter who was, in fact, knocked up.
I don't expect you to like the joke or find it funny. It is ok if you hate the joke. I hate a LOT of jokes, but it is a joke.
Letterman said "during the game Sarah Palin's daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez. You can see how that would be awkward."
It was a joke. Mr Letterman was not saying that Sarah Palin's daughter was raped. He was not saying that he wants to have sex with the girl. I know that the 14 year old was the one at the game, but the joke obviously referred to the older daughter who was, in fact, knocked up.
I don't expect you to like the joke or find it funny. It is ok if you hate the joke. I hate a LOT of jokes, but it is a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)