Last time, we covered how there is a definite compounding of crises possible with our crumbling economy and insistence on deploying massive amounts of offensive military mechanisms in various parts of the world. Let’s discuss a few additional factors that might augment this potential possibility.
Civil Liberties
The loss of civil liberties, while traditionally a concern of the hard-right (see Reagan’s 1964 RNC speech) has now become associated with left-leaning groups such as the ACLU and left-wing politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. While these people are definitely statists, they are alarmed at the rate in which personal freedoms such as privacy and speech are being eroded - especially in the name of security and saftey.
But conservatives have held on to a few pieces of the civil liberties “pie” - namely, religious liberty and some speech concerns (such as Public University’s creation and interpretation of speech codes).
However, no one seems to realize the fact that civil liberties are not a left/right issue, but an authoritarian/libertarian one. This has led to gradual “victories” by left advocates of freedom limitations on right-wing associated liberty, and vica versa. Now we have conservatives saying that it’s no problem if the government taps your phones, searches your house and interrogates you – if you are proven innocent, the benevolent and kind authorities will not harm you. We have left-wingers saying that they believe in free speech, except the kind that might possibly offend some ethnic, gender or other identity group.
The sum of all of this – the aggregate curtailing of personal freedom – would definitely cause a people to begin active resistance of, say, a bankrupt government being more aggressive in revenue collection (if the economy goes bust) and crime prevention (as terrorists and other enemies begin attacking a poorly defended homeland). With a loss of civil liberties, the government begins to see everyone as some shade of an enemy – as some level of threat against its order. Moreover, as non-criminal activities are criminalized (take drug-use and gun ownership for self-defence) the government begins using it’s depleted resources to lock up otherwise law-abiding people instead of going after legitimate criminals. In other words – increasing the capability and responsibilities of government beyond real crime fighting will lead to more and more real crime. It is basic opportunity cost.
Immigrant Labour
When things go awry in any situation, most people look to blame others first rather than take responsibility. In democratic/collectivist societies, this tends to manifest itself in racism and demonization. This is already happening with regards to Mexican immigrants. People who have done nothing other than seek the best market opportunity for work (even if breaking bad laws) are viewed as leeches and parasites on “American jobs.” Even those who haven’t broken these laws are viewed with suspicion, solely because of the language they speak, the colour of their skin or their culture.
So far, these immigrants and those who empathise with them, have not began to fight back. They have mostly ignored the hostility, and kept working. But how long will the attacks on these people be tolerated?
Also, freedoms are being curtailed because of the immigration “problem” - such as the right of an employer to hire whomever he wants and to offer whatever wage he wants. Many conservatives are supporting increasing the scrutiny of the market because of racism. If it were non-immigrant white people looking for work, they would be heralded as following the American dream – but the American dream is evidentially, not for Mexican immigrants.
A failing economy and increasing unemployment, would only exacerbate this problem. Imagine already high unemployment from an economic collapse, and then thousands of unemployed military personnel returning from a military gone broke – but a lot of low-wage jobs being held by one ethnic group who many people believe has not obeyed the rules. This scenario is Weimar Germany all over again.
Cocktail…
[Thanks Darius. I fixed it. - Jew]
Illegal Immigration is rapidly becoming a urgent flash-point issue, because the this lawbreaking population is out of control. Cities and communities have become violators of immigration law, getting duly labeled as ‘Sanctuary cities or even states’? This is no longer isolated communities whose Governors, Mayors and elected officials, who have sold America to the Special interest lobby.
The majority of Politicians have refused to approach this issues, because it has become a grave concern to hard-hit taxpayers. When uncensored it shows the spread of illegal immigrant crime, devastating economic damage to our welfare programs. Tom Fitton, President of the Watchdog legal group www.judicialwatch.org has adopted a PETITION to stop propagation of ‘Sanctuary cities’ where death has become an everyday day occurence at the hands of criminal foreign nationals.
So please sign this petition. www.sanctuarybusters.org/Index.asp?source. www.numbersusa.com for more true facts.
Your immigrant labor section is some of the most ignorant tripe I’ve ever read. It has NOTHING to do with them being from Mexico and EVERYTHING to do with them being ILLEGAL. It is disconcerting that you actually support the breaking of good, decent laws like our immigration laws (granted, they could be reformed, but that is beside the point). Furthermore, it hurts those who actually follow the immigration laws: other legal immigrants. As Dennis Prager once said, I have no problem with Mexicans or any other foreigner attempting to come here illegally. I would do the same if I were in their shoes. But they have to follow the law or they will face the consequences.
I’m bewildered that you are too blind to see this. Usually I at least can understand where you’re coming from on an issue even if I disagree, but this is just bizarre.
This whole article is alarmist to the extreme.
So, out of curiosity, what makes ‘good decent laws like our immigration laws’ good and decent? I mean, besides the arbitrary quotas on how many people can come from each country? And what makes legal immigrants more awesome outside of the fact that they’ve managed to snare visas before they’re all snapped up shortly after they’re offered each year?
Seriously, since when did ‘just because!’ become a good rationalization for anything? Because that’s what those who claim it has EVERYTHING to do with illegal immigrants being ILLEGAL are saying. If you have a decent case to make, make it! Tell me why the restrictions should be at the levels they are today, and tell me why it would be bad to let many, many more people in legally*.
*This actually has almost nothing to do with amnesty. I’m talking about drastically lowering the barriers to immigration.
As CHRISTIANS, we are called to follow the law unless it goes against God’s law. Show me where the immigration laws are unjust. I do agree that we should let more people in legally, but that is a different discussion than what Colin wrote about punishing those who break the current laws.
Labor SHOULD be done by the people willing to do it for the least. This frees up those desiring a higher standard of living to do higher end jobs. Frankly, any American with the kind of educational opportunities we have who fears competition from unskilled labor doesn’t deserve a higher wage. I fully agree that habitually ignoring or breaking laws is a bad idea though. This is my plan for immigration reform:
1) Develop a fast system for handing out work visas at the border. A photo, a fingerprint, and a medical exam. If possible, a brief criminal record check in Mexican police databases. Priority would be given to everyone on the current waiting list, and only when that list is exhausted would others be permitted to apply.
2) Build a security perimeter across the entire border. This might be a fence, cameras, marked mine fields. Basically, we want to make it hard for enemies to use Mexico as a way to smuggle things into our country. Since all legitimate guest workers will be able to easily get a visa, only people who have ill intentions will be trying to sneak over the border.
3) Allow current illegal residents 6 months to register as above.
4) After 6 months of this system, anyone found illegally in the country WILL be deported and their fingerprints entered into a database of people not allowed to receive visas.
Any violent crime by a guest worker may result in imprisonment followed by deportation. A failure to maintain a place to live may result in being asked to leave. Catastrophic medical care insurance might be required since our hospitals are not allowed to turn away emergency patients due to lack of ability to pay. This should be run by insurance companies AS insurance, ensuring that hospitals are not made to lose money providing emergency care. Inability to obtain catastrophic care insurance might result in being asked to leave.
Why the complicated process? The main problems with unlimited immigration from Mexico are the reintroduction of exterminated diseases, tracking of criminals, and burden on welfare systems. The medical check would ensure that exterminated diseases are not re-introduced, the background check and blacklist would reduce potential for crime, and guest workers would not be given access to the welfare system.
Taxes paid by immigrants would be based on services actually used, meaning that immigrants would actually have a lighter tax burden (which makes sense since they are allowed lesser benefits).
Darius T wrote: “As CHRISTIANS, we are called to follow the law unless it goes against God’s law.”
I think we could make a good case that onerous restrictions on immigration are unbiblical. They fail to make allowance for treating aliens with dignity and respect in accordance with principles from the Old Testament. E.g., Leviticus 19:33-34 says:
I’m not sure that we can pass arbitrary quotas on immigration and still fulfill the spirit of that command. Now, granted we are living under grace and not the law, but the principles still apply.
As CHRISTIANS, we are called to follow the law unless it goes against God’s law. Show me where the immigration laws are unjust. I do agree that we should let more people in legally, but that is a different discussion than what Colin wrote about punishing those who break the current laws.
No, laws should have to be proven to be just, rather than unjust. Congress and state legislatures pass all kinds of random, useless laws all the time. I in no way feel compelled to sit down and prove that every single one I disagree with is unjust.
I’m not actually trying to condone lawbreaking, per se, but since you called immigration law ‘good and decent’, I assumed you had some rationale for this, and I wanted to see it.
I suppose you’re trying to make the argument that we should crack down on the current crop of illegals, to be followed up by loosening immigration restrictions (since you agreed we should let more in legally). If the end goal is to reduce the number of illegal immigrants, we could do that just as easily by loosening the restrictions from the get-go. It’s a lot more efficient, and actually solves the ‘problem’.
I’m just trying to point out that ‘lawbreakers’ is an arbitrary term when the laws are arbitrary. I’m not a fan of punishing people for arbitrary reasons.
Ardith, whatever your logical position in the matter, as Christians we ARE commanded to obey legitimate authorities. In the case of an unjust law, this requirement is nullified, but that doesn’t mean that a Christian can legitimately ignore “dumb” laws. Not only does doing so violate the Scriptural command to respect the government authorities God has placed over you, but it also causes a stumbling block to others. Just as Paul indicated we should not eat meat offered to idols if it led others to believe we were doing wrong, so also we should not disobey dumb laws for the same reason.
Jew, you make a good point about the possible logic in not supporting immigration laws. Currently, the legal hassles of legalized immigration are entirely improper, resulting in it being very difficult time for people seeking economic opportunities. Still, when dealing with adults you are also dealing with people who knowingly went somewhere they were not allowed to be to live and work.
A law that suddenly outlawed legal residents I would likely ignore, and the internment of the Japanese immigrants in WW2 was such a wrongdoing. I’m not sure that a law requiring people to follow a specified process to live here fits in that category though. Of course, any inhumane or unjust treatment of those immigrants would definitely qualify.
The problem with amnesty that is not PRECEDED by clearing the waiting list is that it unfairly rewards those who ignored the rules at the expense to those who obeyed the rules. I would rather grant instant visas to everyone on the list first before I would support illegal residents being legalized. Even if the rules were overly strict, to reward those who broke them over those who followed them is unjust.
Atanamis said: Ardith, whatever your logical position in the matter, as Christians we ARE commanded to obey legitimate authorities. In the case of an unjust law, this requirement is nullified, but that doesn’t mean that a Christian can legitimately ignore “dumb” laws. Not only does doing so violate the Scriptural command to respect the government authorities God has placed over you, but it also causes a stumbling block to others. Just as Paul indicated we should not eat meat offered to idols if it led others to believe we were doing wrong, so also we should not disobey dumb laws for the same reason.
Where did I say I had any problem with following the law, or was inclined to ignore any law? I just have issues with people (Republicans, mostly, though not exclusively) claiming that the best way to fix problems resulting from arbitrary laws is to increase law enforcement, rather than fixing the arbitrariness of the laws themselves. I’m looking at the issue more from a policy perspective than an actions-of-the-individual perspective.
Which I think is what Colin was doing as well, although he’s of course free to correct me if this is inaccurate.
I see where you got mixed up, though. I think it started when Darius tried to use God’s command to us as individuals to obey the law in response to Colin’s more general problems with current immigration policy, and the scare tactics used to obtain support for stricter enforcement of said immigration policy.
Does that help make things make more sense?
Bs. Illegals are all about illicit profits, nothing more, nothing less. Taking jobs americans won’t take? I have personally seen illegals working in skilled trades such as carpenters, electricians, and plumbers without any kind of license and very little supervision. Even in the unskilled fields you only have to look at the enormous abuses these people suffer. Corporations hide behind the guise of using “subcontractors” to allow paying of sub minimum wages to people living in slave conditions.
Even the federal government is stealing from these people. Illegals all work with phony ss #’s. Amazingly employers are allowed 1 year correct the information after a number kicks back as invalid. At the end of the year the person just submits another phony ss # and the clock is ticking again. Billions are pouring into medicare and social security that will never benefit the contributors. This is shameful beyond believe. Retirees, who represent the wealthiest and most politically active slice of america, are literally stealing from the poorest underclass. You can be sure that your elected representative who is constantly in search of bribes (oops, sorry campaign contributions) and votes is fully aware of this. Expanding on that thought, since the social security surplus is being used to prop up the budget, that means each and every one of us is also stealing from these people. I would call that immoral.
If capitalists want to pay the lowest cost for labor then they are free to move operations to where the labor is the lowest cost. Staying in america, taking advantage of living in america, then importing an underclass to do profit from cheap labor is pure hypocrisy at best. Capitalism not playing by the rules is what has us in the financial mess that exists today. Change the laws or play by the rules. What is so hard to understand about that? Enforce the laws. As long as it is a lot more profitable to break the law than to pay decent wages the problem will not go away. Putting some ceo’s in jail for hiring illegals will eliminate the issue very quickly.
Secure the border? I lived in brownsville for 2 years. I can tell you that the only way to secure the border is to eliminate the incentive for crossing it. Any other solution is just pissing in the wind. It is pretty amazing that we are checking babies diapers before boarding airplanes while thousands of people simply walk or drive across the boarder every day. Can you say security risk?
Twelve million people are helpless pawns in this cynical, manipulative, self serving game. Everyone who benefits by the abuse of these people to buy lettuce a few cents cheaper or save $10.00 having their lawn mowed, which would be pretty much every american citizen, should be deeply ashamed.
So colin, you think just because you moved to England you can start adding the letter “u” where it doesn’t belong (labour)? What’s next, are you going to start painting your house a new colour? And drink flavoured tea?
-Ike
Good points. I agree with Ardith that lawmakers have the burden of proof - not those on whom a law is enforced. Atanamis’ solution, as almost always, is a reasonable compromise that I would support as it moves towards a borderless society - even though I don’t think that is his intent.
In general, I would just add that I fully condone “law-breaking” regarding any laws that:
a) contradict God’s law / moral law
b) contradict natural law (with exceptions for Christians)
I do not condone law-breaking in these instances:
c) for expediency
d) for need
e) for idealism
I would argue that many (not all) immigration laws break item “B” - and some also break “A.” As Christians, we need not be cautious or careful with those laws that fall in “A.” However, breaking laws in “B” is a little more tricky.
For example, my country currently bans handguns - this is a “B” scenario, but not an “A.” Should I, as a Christian, own a gun anyway? If I do choose to own a gun, should I then resist enforcement if they try to confiscate my gun or punish me for violating their laws?
I can understand the desire to enforce laws, even if they aren’t great laws. Lax enforcement breeds disrepect for the law. The law should be respected, and if we just change a law because everybody was breaking it anyway, that will just encourage more lawbreaking in the future.
I think most people can understand the difference between a law based on preference and a natural law. E.g., our immigration quotas and regulations are preferences. Laws against murder and rape are based on natural laws. If we abolish the immigration quotas, what used to be wrong is now right. If we abolish laws against murder, murder is still wrong.
So there’s a difference. I think we can safely adjust the immigration laws without breeding widespread disrepect for the law. This is especially true if the majority of citizens feel the current immigration laws are unjust. Changing an unjust law won’t cause citizens to start violating a just law. I would even suggest the opposite: enforcing an unjust law would cause citizens to lose all respect for the government and law enforcement.
Ardith, I apologize that I misunderstood your intent. I agree that lawmakers ought to bear the burden of proof when justifying their laws. If we aren’t sure whether a law is needed, it shouldn’t exist. That said, a law shouldn’t be deliberately disobeyed unless it is specifically unjust. Dumb laws should be struck from the books not ignored.
Bob, companies ARE moving jobs to places where it is cheaper to find labor. My main question for you is why you believe you have a greater right to ANY job than someone willing to do it cheaper? Economies grow by finding faster, cheaper, and scalable ways to produce wealth. People have a higher standard of living today than in the middle ages because food and clothes are produced faster and cheaper. If you can hire a carpenter for $7/hr to put wood floors in your house, you are more likely to be able to afford wood floors. Cheaper labor makes everyone more wealthy (example, your fruit in the store would be more expensive without immigrant pickers).
Colin, glad you approve of my suggestion! Intellectually, I like the idea of open borders and anarchist government. Practically, I’d need to see a lot of little steps proving it can actually work before I’ll believe it. On paper, communism is a great idea. Practically, it breaks due to man not being nice enough. Anarchy also looks good, but it depends on every individual being smart enough to build non-abusive alliances against force. Until I’ve actually seen one work on a large scale, I’m going to remain suspicious.
That’s fine Atanamis - I am fully confident that as we work out your pragmatic solutions, it will prove my case gradually. Now who is going to let us try?
“My main question for you is why you believe you have a greater right to ANY job than someone willing to do it cheaper?”
I never said that. I understand at least a little bit about economics, economies of scale, and standards of living thank you.
I said that the argument that immigrants take jobs that americans won’t perform is bogus. Plenty of illegals are being used to displace american workers for much cheaper wages. If someone wants to set up a guest worker program that accommodates these people legally and justly (like not stealing fica contributions) instead of abusing them and stealing from then that’s fine then go for it. Until that happens then just obey the rules. I find it is morally reprehensible that everyone is beating their breasts on this issue then wink wink nod nod taking advantage of it.
“Cheaper labor makes everyone more wealthy (example, your fruit in the store would be more expensive without immigrant pickers)”.
Really? I think “everyone” would not include people who’s labor is cheaper or whose job is taken. I could be wrong.
Yes, you would be wrong. Today, you are better off being broke in the US than most people in most of the world. Why is that? Because even living out of a food pantry provides a higher standard of living than most of Africa or Asia. Go visit overseas, and compare standards of living. You just get more stuff for your dollar here.
Your fallacy is that you view economies as closed systems. The problem with this mindset is that there aren’t a limited number of jobs or skills or products in the world. If your carpenter above can no longer maintain the opulent life of the average American doing one task, it is his responsibility to downgrade his standard of living or upgrade his economic contribution. Your economic contribution is nothing different than producing a good or service that others want enough to trade for it.
If my job gos to someone in India willing to take less for it, I need to either move to India and match their price, or find a way to make myself useful enough to merit my being paid more here. Currently one of my primary advantages is speaking English with an American accent, but that is hardly a skill for which I can expect to demand high salary long term. If I’m not able to provide superior benefit, why should I expect superior compensation? That said, with lower production costs I will get better return even for my reduced compensation.
To summarize, protectionism of the kind you describe is based on the assumption that you are magically better than those living elsewhere based purely on where you happened to be born. If they can come here and achieve the job that your employer needs done cheaper than you, they have every moral right to do so. And if your argument is that you provide better quality but your employer doesn’t care, consider that you either need to better justify why your quality is worth the extra cost or recognize that the quality you are provided is just another service which is not worth the cost. Saving your job is not a legitimate reason to prevent others from improving their own lives by better meeting the needs of others.
Bob, can you see the problem with these two sentences? Obviously, some Americans (for whatever reason) feel that they are entitled to a certain wage as a feature of a job. So an American obviously won’t take a job that includes a lower wage because immigrants are being hired instead. So immigrants are taking jobs that Americans wont take - lower wage jobs that have obviously had their prices inflated. It is no different than a correction that comes in the housing market when the prices were too high - it always catches up. Labour in the US in many jobs is priced too high, unless Americans in these jobs are willing to swallow their pride, sell their boat, buy a cheaper car and not purchase a McMansion - then they are going to be in an all-or-nothing scenario. The immigrant surge in these jobs can be stopped today, instantly, if Americans were willing to work for realistic, market wages.
No,no,no. are you guys reading what i wrote? I am not in any way shape or form defending wages. I said if we set a up program to hire immigrants legally and aboveboard then I would be all for it. I think that’s a pretty clear statement. I never said anything about stopping immigrants. Requiring employers to obey the laws of the land is hardly protectionism. If the laws are wrong then change them. Don’t end run them and say it’s capitalism at work. Bs. Why then can’t you just murder your competitors ala chicago 1920’s and russia 1990’s. You can’t have it both ways. If it is ok to simply ignore immigration law to maximize profits then why not just ignore all the laws? Where is the line in the sand and why?
How can something be a realistic market wage if it is based on breaking the law? I have volunteered to help with some of the immigration groups and there are some serious abuses out there. Are you guys really ok with the abuses that go on when people are part of the underground? Not a very christian attitude.
Go overseas? I have traveled, worked, and lived overseas extensively. I am writing this while living in the south pacific. Every country is a closed system within it’s boarders. You have to obey the local rules. In many of these countries breaking the rules can have severe, severe consequences.
I do agree labor should be a free market (I never disagreed, you guys just assumed so). Even so, I feel there should be some reasonable middle ground between being highly paid to load trucks because you have a strong union and simple slave labor in a sweatshop. The standard of living in america and europe is higher because we have developed a reasonably paid middle class with reasonable (usually) laws for protection in the workplace. I have been in plenty of countries where there is a vast pool of very cheap labor (many are children) working in very hazardous conditions and controlled by a very tiny pool of great wealth. These are almost always called third world hellholes.
What would you consider as the acceptable human costs of capitalism? As per your definition of capitalism, any workplace safety would be unacceptable since it would reduce profits. Should we go back to the days of black lung, asbestosis, an entire building of workers burning to death because all the doors were chained shut? I am personally willing to accept some reduction in the concept of pure capitalism to accommodate a bettering of the human condition.
bob,
1) I’m glad you’re ok with an unlimited legal guest worker program
2) It isn’t laws that make murder immoral. Murder would still be immoral even if it were legal. Hiring foreign citizens is not inherently immoral. Things that aren’t immoral should be allowed in a capitalistic system. Our current immigration laws are anti-capitalist, and possibly immoral (since they infringe on the rights of others).
3) Realistic market wage is what someone will offer and take when not under duress. If Mexican citizens were being kidnapped and forced to work for $1.50/hr, that would not be a realistic wage. If they are willing to voluntarily sneak into the country to work for $1.50 an hour though, that is a realistic wage. Would you prefer to insist that they go back to Mexico and work for $0.75 an hour (or not work at all)? How does that help anyone?
4) Shortages of employees is a myth, just as shortages of jobs is a myth. There are always people willing to do a job for the right price, and if you can’t find someone willing to do it you aren’t offering enough. There is also always someone out there with resources who wants something done for them, and if you offer to do it they will be willing to give you some of their resources.
5) All employment is negotiation. If you want more (or higher quality) employees, offer higher wages. If you want a better job, convince someone that what you are offering is better than the alternatives and worth greater expense. If my employer makes demands on me I find unreasonable, I’ll seek alternative employment either in my field, in another field, or by creating a field if I can’t find one acceptable to me. All the government needs to enforce here are honest contracts. If you say you’ll pay me $40/hr $60/hr overtime, and then don’t, I’m going to want some way of coercing your in to being honest.
6. Yes, if I’m part of a collaborative negotiation group and you’re not, why should you benefit from my negotiation team? You can either join my union to get the benefits, or start your own.
7. I actually agree that workplace safety is a legitimate demand of the state. Others here though would suggest that so long as full disclosure is made, the decision can be left to the employee. Should it be illegal to send astronauts into space due to the potential danger? Or is it better to allow the astronaut themself to determine what is reasonable risk and to quit if it ever becomes unreasonable? This is a point on which I am willing to compromise (though full disclosure is a requirement).
Good points well written.
Point 2. Huh? So who makes the call? Some people actually don’t think murder is immoral. What makes you right and them wrong? What if your opinion of moral differs with say for instance your stockbroker who just took your life savings to grand cayman to drink pina coladas on the beach for the rest of his life. Who would arbitrate? Sorry, it’s either legal or illegal. If you doesn’t like the laws either get them changed or go where you do like the laws. Don’t weasel around and say well I think it’s morally correct so it’s ok. I am sure there are a lot of people on wall street right now willing to make that argument.
Point 3. Same thing, do it legally so we have some control. Not all people coming across the border are particularly desirable or honorable. There are a pretty fair number of criminals involved. There are people actually being kidnapped or lied to and do find themselves as slaves. Most illegals are put in great danger crossing the border and thousands, many women and children, die. Human smugglers are not honorable white knights leading people to the promised land. If anything goes wrong the people or either killed or left to die. When I was living in texas smugglers abandoned a tractor trailer load of immigrants in a truck stop in victoria locked in. 18 died including a 5 year old boy who died in his fathers arms. Sickening. Do you really want to be complicit in all this? Do you really consider it moral? If existing laws were enforced to the point where employers would only hire people who were legal then this would all stop. Are you really and truly comfortable with women and little kids dying in the desert to save 50 cents on a head of lettuce. I’m not. Make it legal, make it safe. The wealthiest country in the world can afford at least that much.
4,5,6,7 yep.
On a more macro scale it is interesting to contemplate that almost every country that you would consider living and raising your kids in has a well paid middle class, high amounts of social spending, strong worker protection laws, and strong unions. Just an observation.
Regarding absolute morality:
This is a long debate, and one we’ve had here many times. Suffice to say that I do believe in absolute morality, and that non-consensual use of force except to protect one’s physical safety, freedom of movement, or property is wrong. Unlike Colin, I also make exception for governments when seeking to ensure the safety, freedom of movement, or property of their citizens.
The reason for this is that the use of physical force prevents you from making your own choices to maximize your opportunities. I happen to believe these are absolutes because they were written of absolutes by the creator of the universe. I also believe that these were written into the consciences of mankind though, and that regardless of religion at some level people are aware of this. I agree though that outside of religious context absolute morality is unprovable.
That said, I’d much rather live in a world where I could not be physically coerced into choices, and firmly believe that such a world would also be vastly better for the large majority of people (assuming imperfect rulers, which has proven to be the case in 100% of historical cases). A committed group can implement a socialistic commune inside a capitalistic libertarian state. No other form of life is possible in a socialistic authoritarian state. A capitalistic libertarianism therefore maximizes the potential sub-systems from which to choose (while also providing a profit motive for people who otherwise wouldn’t care to meet one another’s needs).
Regarding harm of illegalizing immigration:
See my earlier post in the thread. I fully agree that the current system promotes the creation of an underworld that doesn’t report crimes to the police, that promotes peripheral lawbreaking, and that establishes harmful smuggling economies that can be used for other purposes. It is the kind of scenario you described that led Jew and Ardith to claim in this thread that the immigration laws themselves were immoral, and should possibly be ignored by Christians as a result. I agree that any law that prevents us from coming to the aid of someone in need MUST be ignored.
Regarding worker protection laws
Most of them are also white and of European descent. Correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation. That said, the first two just mean the average person is wealthy, which is actually one of the main criteria one would use in choosing where to raise a family. I’m sure you would find a high correlation between places without highly virulent plagues and places you’d want to raise a family as well.
Worker protection laws are superfluous if workers are unwilling to work in dangerous conditions and those conditions are required to be revealed. (Though again as I said earlier I actually support safe workplace rules so long as the rules aren’t about silly things like second hand smoke which has never been demonstrated to actually cause harm except to people with existing medical conditions, who also have problems with dust and pollen.) Strong unions are fine so long as they aren’t government protected unions. In fact, a strong union can insist on safe work conditions regardless of laws doing the same. If all/most/many skilled workers in a field choose to negotiate collaboratively, they have every right to do so.
The Writer’s strike was an excellent example of how such strikes SHOULD work. Any company could have hired scabs to replace the writers guild members, but then they would have to face the penalty of members never being willing to work for them again. This was a classic example of two groups with interlinking interests negotiating for an agreement that was mutually beneficial. Neither union nor employer should be allowed to make use of physical force to mandate their position though. (I also don’t like the union tendency to value years of experience over quality of service, but that is entirely between the union, its members, and their employers to negotiate amongst themselves.)
Good thoughts all.
“Most of them are also white and of European descent. Correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation.”
Very true. I’ve always wondered if it was the chicken or the egg. Most of the third world in the americas was also populated by white (spanish in spain are very fair) europeans. Where did things differ? Protestant vs Catholic. Exploiters vs Settlers. Intermixing vs Purity. Good things to think about on a rainy day.