ron paul

There are “open” borders and there are open borders. I’m glad that he doesn’t take the completely anarchist point of view on the matter. I think he used to, but perhaps since he was able to watch firsthand how those floodgates harmed the economy in some ways he changed his stance on the matter a bit over the years. I don’t think he’d go so far as to erect a fence. I don’t think he’d need to. His policies would remove a lot of the incentive to come unlawfully in the first place. One thing I’ve avoided telling other RP fans is that those NAU highways are getting built whether RP gets elected or not. What may be more important is just what groups are making the policy when it all goes down. That’s where RP comes in because he’s corralled the opposition to those roads and he’ll be able to convey to them why it is best to let happen. A lot of RP fans like him for his abolition of the FR stance and his views on hard money. Look at where the dollar is at. Do you really think it is going to make a comeback? I don’t. RP fans may be cheering on the Amero and not even know it. Which, hey, if the Amero is backed right and used right, maybe it’d be better anyway.

LOL I’m sorry I missed the Rev. war costumed person – didn’t see him from where I was sitting.

Paul has said he would consider truly open borders but only once the welfare state has been dismantled. There is some internal consistency here, more than it may appear. Libertarianism promotes the free flow of ideas, goods, and people but only in a context where states don’t exist. When is libertarian immigration policies and also states it creates something akin to an arbitrage opportunity in trading… a chance to gain profit without any risk. This, of course, is why so many people come to the US: not merely for our freedom but for our free health care, education, and welfare. Whether you find that a good thing or not, Paul maintains that the two issues of welfare and immigration are simply incompatible policies. I suspect he would have much less concern about immigration if there was no welfare state for immigrants.

This is a good point, though I take issue with the contention that immigrants are a drain on our welfare system – this is something I’ve pointed out here and elsewhere often.. More on this when I’m not doped up on cold medication

i was there, and he lost me with both the opening prayer and then the shitty musical act. once the word “creator” was thrown out there, i was done for.

Religious people are OK with me, so long as they don’t try to impose their beliefs on me. Ron Paul would not, so I don’t care if he believes in Christ or Cathulu.

I see no irony about Ron Paul speaking at a War Memorial, since he only opposes wars that are wrong, like Iraq, Korea or Vietnam. Wars that are right, like WWII or (arguably) Afghanistan, he has no problem with. The question is whether the war is offensive or defensive.

I also see no tension between libertarianism and opposing illegal immigration. There are two issues involved:

The first is, should the law be enforced, and should those who break the law be rewarded for doing so. I think the answer here, from a Libertarian/minarchist point of view, has to be yes it should be enforced, and no, lawbreakers should not be rewarded. Laws must be either enforced or repealed. They should not be ignored.

The second is, how many immigrants should be permitted. That is an economic and political argument with no right answer, especially in the context of a huge welfare state. I tend to believe that more immigration is warranted, but do not want it to be too fast. Unlimited immigration would cause workers to cross the border until the conditions of unskilled labor here were as bad as they are in Mexico, and it would take quite a while even for our freer economy to grow enough to restore things. We need to maintain a ratio of workers to capital that allows Americans to live well, and that means that population growth should not exceed capital formation. Unfortunately, there is no way to work out a mathematic solution to the problem, I have used math here as a metaphor.

That said, eventually I’d like to see open borders. It would have to be after the repeal of the welfare state, at least.

It’s not about winning an election. Ron Paul has already ran for the Presidency. He “only” mustered 2% of the votes but he would have received a whole lot more if he didn’t have to contend with the two major socialist parties which each effectively promising to be the “lesser of two evils.” RP can muster up votes; he essentially has no problems getting reelected to the House but that’s not the point. He has exposed the Fed for the evil menaces they’ve become and continues to grill the Fed chairmen for their deceitful tactics of manipulating the economic data to suit their agenda. Or rather the agenda of the politicians who have the power to unseat the chairman. RP will probably not win the primaries but I’ll bet some of his positions will be brought up at the Republican National Convention. If that’s successful, so will be Ron Paul. Go get em, RP.

“so many people come to the US: not merely for our freedom but for our free health care, education, and welfare.” If by “welfare” you mean the same “general welfare” that our forefathers meant, my personal interactions with immigrants (visaed or unvisaed) would bear that statement out. If you mean welfare programs, is there any empirical evidence for that statement?

And would any of us want to live in a country in which emergency care and basic education were not freely available?

If X is the maximum number of legal immigrants, the entry of Immigrant Number X+1 must be opposed, even as a legal immigrant. Doesn’t that mean that supporting a cap is the equivalent of opposing, for at least all immigrants at X+1 and beyond, both illegal and legal immigration? Isn’t it premature then to characterize someone as only against illegal immigration until we know that they are against numerical caps, and in truth, all barriers to legal entry? If there is a minimum education requirement, for example, the policy will be to oppose both illegal and legal immigrants below that minimum education level. Same goes for financial requirements, etc. So the only true policy against only “illegal” immigration is open borders. Absent that, the system which more easily allows legal entry is the system that is most against illegal immigration.

With that in mind, which immigration system allowed for easier legal entry into the U.S. - the one in place for Ellis Island, or the one we have now?

A more nuanced version of the argument: suppose that immigration came at zero cost (aside from the costs of physically moving to the US) and citizenship was instantaneously granted on request. Suppose at the same time there was a robust welfare/guaranteed minimum wage/citizen’s dividend-type system in place. In a situation like that, or something close to it, one might well expect massive immigration and expect that immigration to be largely detrimental to the country.

The lack of empirical evidence is problematic, even with a more nuanced argument. The burden of proof in the “land of the free” must be on those who would restrict its inhabitants’ freedom.

But I won’t go too far down that road, because even if there were evidence of causation (of governmental benefits causing immigration) and also evidence of material negative impact to the broader economy of such immigration - and the contrary has been shown to be true by numerous governmental and private studies, including general agreement among Nobel-winning economists - there is also the matter of values. Certain policies are not measured in terms of economic impact; we simply make things work when values dictate policy. For example, the medical profession will not abolish the Hippocratic Oath, no matter what the numbers. Similarly, abortion regulation will not be driven by economic arguments or evidence. Lunch counter sit-ins did not prevail because of economic logic or evidence.

The values at risk in the immigrant policy debate are for another thread, but they are sufficiently important that evidence alone cannot be enough to support a policy that contravenes our values. This is where the immigrant solidarity crowd comes from - it sees both the evidence and values on its side.

what is wrong with talking about his creator. he is directly exercising his first amendment right from the constitution something he truly stands by and believes in but isn’t trying to impose on you. and whether or not the music act was good or not shouldn’t decide whether you like him or not.