I want to do the following in this paper: First to present the theses that constitute the hard core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. …
Marx … gives a historical account of the emergence of capitalism that makes the point that much or even most of the initial capitalist property is the result of plunder, enclosure, and conquest. Similarly … the role of force and violence in exporting capitalism to the – as we would now say – Third World is heavily emphasized. Admittedly, all this is generally correct, and insofar as it is there can be no quarrel with labeling such capitalism exploitative.
Well, I see you adhere to the Animal Farm exception RE: government parasites. All parasites are equal, but some are more equal than others. I have no idea whether an immigrant is going to draw from the government trough, but I have 100% infallible certitude that a ICE/BCP thugs WILL. Let’s see, 100K/year salary, government welfare for health and pension, special privileges granted through public union bargaining, qualified police immunity to harass, threaten, detain or kill anyone. There are two interpretations of this nonsense. The most charitable one is extreme cognitive dissonance. The least charitable one is white resentment expropriating libertarianism to plead for a state subsidy.
I think that all parasites are parasited. But some of them do not have the power to initiate force and to steal your earnings so that other parasites can benefit. There is no reason to have an issue with those that wish to be parasites as long as they have to act in a free market system where voluntary transactions are the norm. And even you must see that there is nothing voluntary about being forced to give up a portion of your earnings to fund social schemes that you do not support.
I suggest that you try thinking a bit more clearly. If you did, your postings would be more logical and less emotional.
More logical and less emotion, eh? Hmmm, I think my version of Spock differs from yours…
“But there is no anarchist solution in a welfare state.”
Right. Which is why anarchists propose getting rid of the welfare state, rather than adopting authoritarian “solutions” to make that welfare state easier to continue maintaining.
It’s not complicated: Anarchism and authoritarianism are opposites. So when someone says “the solution here is to be authoritarian,” that someone is either a very confused anarchist, or not an anarchist.
“Right. Which is why anarchists propose getting rid of the welfare state, rather than adopting authoritarian “solutions” to make that welfare state easier to continue maintaining.”
Who is trying to make the welfare state easier to maintain, those that will let more voters who depend on the welfare state into the country or those that want to limit the handouts by preventing freeloaders from putting their hands out and demanding that the working class taxpayers subsidize the goodies that they want?
“It’s not complicated: Anarchism and authoritarianism are opposites. So when someone says “the solution here is to be authoritarian,” that someone is either a very confused anarchist, or not an anarchist.”
I think that the confusion is with those that assume that we don’t have a welfare state, don’t have an overburdened taxpayer class, and have no problem with increasing the burden.
Quoth Vangel:
“I think that the confusion is with those that assume that we don’t have a welfare state, don’t have an overburdened taxpayer class, and have no problem with increasing the burden.”
There are two ways to address that thought.
One is with the fact that in the United States, immigrants subsidize welfare entitlements for the native population rather than the other way around. That is, immigrants pay more in taxes per capita and consume less in transfer payments, etc., than the native born. So it is the immigrants, not the natives, who are ” burdened.”
A second is by noting that even if it was the other way around, the way you get rid of a system that burdens people is by letting them get tired of the burden and shrug it off, not by using authoritarian solutions to try to lighten the load on them to keep your authoritarian system rolling along.
And the third is by noting that regardless of which way of doing things is right versus wrong, there’s no question concerning which way is anarchist and which way is authoritarian. Limiting the movement of people to save your welfare state is authoritarian, not anarchist. You don’t have to like that fact. It’s a fact whether you like it or not.
“One is with the fact that in the United States, immigrants subsidize welfare entitlements for the native population rather than the other way around. That is, immigrants pay more in taxes per capita and consume less in transfer payments, etc., than the native born. So it is the immigrants, not the natives, who are ” burdened.””
Are you talking about legal immigrants? I thought that the debate is about illegals.
All immigrants, but “illegal immigrants” [sic — the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration] more so than “legal” immigrants.
“Legal” immigrants get tax IDs and can apply for “social services.”
“Illegal” immigrants get taxes take out of their checks under false Social Security numbers and then never collect tax refunds or Social Security benefits. They’re also ineligible for most “social services,” and avoid many of those they would be eligible for because they’re afraid it might get them caught.
“Illegal immigrants” are probably the only reason Social Security hasn’t gone bust quite yet.
“All immigrants, but “illegal immigrants” [sic — the US Constitution forbids the federal government to regulate immigration] more so than “legal” immigrants.
“Legal” immigrants get tax IDs and can apply for “social services.”……”
I am dealing with a simple statement that you made previously.
it was, “One is with the fact that in the United States, immigrants subsidize welfare entitlements for the native population rather than the other way around. That is, immigrants pay more in taxes per capita and consume less in transfer payments, etc., than the native born. So it is the immigrants, not the natives, who are ” burdened.””
My issue is that a statement that may be applicable to a large category may not be applicable to a small subcomponent that differs markedly from the average. I simply do not believe that a decent study to support what you said exists and would expect someone as smart and careful as you are to see it if you are provided such information. There is a huge difference between the typical legal immigrant and an illegal crossing the border to pick fruit.
Yes, there is a huge difference between typical immigrants with permission slips from the ruling gang and typical immigrants without such permission slips. Really, the only things they have in common are that both groups subsidize welfare for the natives while lowering the crime rates.
Permission slips are not important. What is important is the theft component by taking things that others are forced to pay for. In a free society, the immigration issue would not be important. In our society, it has to be.
If you’re most concerned about the recipients of theft, then you would be more concerned about corporate interests and certain wealthy individuals who receive the lion share of benefit from state intervention. Picking on an undocumented worker who ends up contributing more than they take while worrying less about a billionaire who gains from artificially reduced inputs because of state aggression seems strange. You’re being harmed by the latter, helped by the former, but you can only imagine punishing the former.
Is that because you think it’s easier to get the state to punish the immigrants than to stop helping the billionaires?
“If you’re most concerned about the recipients of theft, then you would be more concerned about corporate interests and certain wealthy individuals who receive the lion share of benefit from state intervention. Picking on an undocumented worker who ends up contributing more than they take while worrying less about a billionaire who gains from artificially reduced inputs because of state aggression seems strange.”
As an anarcho-capitalist, I am concerned about all forms of theft. I do not want the government to use stolen loot to support corporations just as I do not want it to support individuals.
“Is that because you think it’s easier to get the state to punish the immigrants than to stop helping the billionaires?”
I am sorry if I gave you that impression but I thought that I was clear that I was an anarcho-capitalist. I reject all forms of theft.
https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/documents/files/Immigration_MythsFacts.pdf
Skip to page 11 for details on how much undocumented workers contribute.
I agree that when laws are written those with the best lobbyists write them. Ironically, it is the large corporations that you seem to be so concerned with that want low skill immigrants so that they can have a cheaper workforce. They don’t have to worry about the social costs because those are paid by the general public, mostly in the form of higher property taxes.
I also do not believe that unskilled immigrants contribute more to the people being asked to pay for the welfare and social programs that they use. Those people can lose even if, on net, we have a social benefit.
“it is the large corporations that you seem to be so concerned with that want low skill immigrants so that they can have a cheaper workforce. They don’t have to worry about the social costs because those are paid by the general public, mostly in the form of higher property taxes.”
There are two things going on there. The main one is that undocumented workers have little to no legal recourse, so they are especially vulnerable. But why do they not have legal recourse? Specifically because of the way that government controls legal claims. Yes, large corporations exploit that, but they’re exploiting government policies, not acting in their absence.
The second part is what you mention, and it’s true. But again, the reason this is effective is because of regulation that prevents employees escaping into either the direct competition sector or the substitute markets. So, it’s quite true that large corporations exploit the situation, but the cause of prior government restraint.
Looking at either case, and recognizing the true source, should never cause someone to go “what we need is further government regulation.” If the government has already punished workers to the benefit of corporations, it seems rather odd to insist that the way to defeat the corporation is to further harm workers. This is kind of like the doctors who would bleed patients and then, when there was no improvement, insist that more bleeding was needed.
“There are two things going on there. The main one is that undocumented workers have little to no legal recourse, so they are especially vulnerable.”
I don’t agree with this. Undocumented workers are protected by the law because it applies to everyone.
“But why do they not have legal recourse? Specifically because of the way that government controls legal claims. Yes, large corporations exploit that, but they’re exploiting government policies, not acting in their absence.”
Why do you want so much government? Corporations and individuals should use private legal institutions to resolve disputes. If you want government to decide, you will always have a tainted system.
“The second part is what you mention, and it’s true. But again, the reason this is effective is because of regulation that prevents employees escaping into either the direct competition sector or the substitute markets. So, it’s quite true that large corporations exploit the situation, but the cause of prior government restraint.”
I have no idea what you are saying. Please be more clear. My point is a simple one. it is the public that pays the regulatory costs so it is best to eliminate the regulations that are responsible for them. I have no problem with someone crossing a border and offering to work for someone else at a rate that is acceptable to both under terms that are acceptable to both parties. But when you have a welfare system that forces taxpayers to pay for resources used up by individuals who do not have to pay for them, you cannot have unregulated immigration. You guys are interested in philosophy. Go to your Republic and see the argument given by Polemarchus’ father. How is it just to force working families to pay for the welfare benefits that are used up by immigrants or the domestic underclass?
“Looking at either case, and recognizing the true source, should never cause someone to go “what we need is further government regulation.” If the government has already punished workers to the benefit of corporations, it seems rather odd to insist that the way to defeat the corporation is to further harm workers. This is kind of like the doctors who would bleed patients and then, when there was no improvement, insist that more bleeding was needed.”
You are missing my argument. As an anarcho-capitalist, I would eliminate all regulations and recognize the property rights of individuals. In a free country, there would be no restriction to movement other than property lines. But there would also be no government welfare program.
“As an anarcho-capitalist, I would eliminate all regulations and recognize the property rights of individuals. In a free country, there would be no restriction to movement other than property lines. But there would also be no government welfare program.”
And yet here you are advocating for restrictions to movement other than property lines, because absent those restrictions you believe that government welfare programs would be strained.
Or, to put it a different way, advocating against both a free country and the possibility of one.
“And yet here you are advocating for restrictions to movement other than property lines, because absent those restrictions you believe that government welfare programs would be strained.”
I am AGAINST the welfare state, not the free movement of individuals in a free society. You get rid of the regulatory state and I would be happy to see people have mobility rights.
“Or, to put it a different way, advocating against both a free country and the possibility of one.”
I am arguing for a free country. A free country would not have a welfare state. And if you do have a welfare state, I suggest that reducing theft by restricting those that suck up resources is a good idea.
“I also do not believe that unskilled immigrants contribute more to the people being asked to pay for the welfare and social programs that they use. Those people can lose even if, on net, we have a social benefit.”
The only sub-group that I’ve seen having any negative effect was a very small short-term loss by native high-school dropouts. Everyone other group benefited. And of course, the benefit to the immigrants themselves is massive.
you have a bit of self-selectivity when it comers to mobility and “welfare benefits.” DHS/ICE/CBP are employees of the state who derive their salaries from “taxpayers.” Hence, they too should be deprived of any mobility
“you have a bit of self-selectivity when it comers to mobility and “welfare benefits.” DHS/ICE/CBP are employees of the state who derive their salaries from “taxpayers.” Hence, they too should be deprived of any mobility”
I am not selective at all. If you have a welfare state you cannot have open borders. If you want open borders you need an anarcho-capitalist system.
“The only sub-group that I’ve seen having any negative effect was a very small short-term loss by native high-school dropouts. Everyone other group benefited. And of course, the benefit to the immigrants themselves is massive”
The simple fact is that the data cannot tell you what you seem to want to draw from it. I do not dispute the fact that legal immigrants fill and create jobs and have a positive effect for the economy because they bring with them skills and education that help them be productive contributors to existing businesses or as entrepreneurs. But I do not believe that is true for the illegals because the positive contributions made by some of them is more than offset by the negative effects of others. Do you really think that it is unthinkable to suggest that all those gang members that come across the borders have a negative effect on communities? Or that the unskilled that start to feed on the teat of the welfare state are not using benefits that taxpayers are forced to pay for?
“A free country would not have a welfare state. And if you do have a welfare state, I suggest that reducing theft by restricting those that suck up resources is a good idea.”
“Reducing theft by restricting those that suck up resources” extends the viable life of the welfare state. So the effect of your authoritarian immigration recommendation is to support the continuation of the authoritarian welfare state.
Going authoritarian on one end of the equation only strengthens authoritarianism on the other end of the equation.
If you’re in favor of immigration restrictions, you’re in favor of perpetuating the welfare state.
“Going authoritarian on one end of the equation only strengthens authoritarianism on the other end of the equation.”
Reducing the level of theft is not authoritarian.
“If you’re in favor of immigration restrictions, you’re in favor of perpetuating the welfare state.”
Nonsense. You already have a welfare state. Letting freeloaders come into the country and forcing taxpayers to subsidize them is far more authoritarian than preventing illegal entry.
Well, as I think I’ve mentioned before here (I’ve certainly mentioned it elsewhere), the subsidies run in the other direction.
But, assuming you are correct, how do you get rid of the welfare state? The choices are:
1) Preserve it against abuse so that it can run on forever with no incentive to get rid of it; or
2) Let it, as it naturally will, become unaffordable and impossible to sustain.
On the set of factual claims you accept, you advocate (1) and I advocate (2).
Or, in other words, you advocate the welfare state in perpetuity and I advocate letting it be destroyed.
And, in other words, you are SO dedicated to preserving the welfare state in perpetuity that you’re willing to use authoritarian means to do so, while I’m opposed enough to the welfare state to accept freedom as the means to ending it.
On the set of factual claims that I accept, one bug of immigration freedom is that all those immigrants will, for at least some time, continue subsidizing the welfare entitlements of the arrogant Americans who gladly cash those checks while whining about the benefactors who make those checks possible. But hopefully we’ll eventually get enough immigrants that they’ll rise up and refuse to continue subsidizing the handouts.
Yes. In American history, immigration restrictionism predates the social welfare state and the state’s intervention in both the movement of people/labor(border control) and goods/services(tariffs) contributed significantly to economic depression(the great depression) which lead to the “remedy” of the New Deal. So, not only does immigration restrictionism perpetuate the “welfare state,” it also invariably expands it. A state that has heavy hand on the free movement of people will not have a light hand on the free movement of goods and services. It will not have a light hand on the redistribution of privileges, rents, wealth and income.