ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Deeper and deeper

The discussion at R. Scott Bakker's Three Pound Brain has continued and sprouted numerous branches, and yet Wängsty himself has thus far resolutely refused to provide any definition of "certainty" or "uncertainty" despite the fact that his entire philosophical framework appears to rest upon them.  Here is but one of several comments that I have made there in answering the various questions of his commenters even as Bakker continues to avoid answering mine.

Why is he so reluctant to provide definitions for his central terms?  Is he afraid that his entire philosophical edifice will tumble to the ground if he exposes it to criticism?  Or is it only that the certainty of a definition would be less moral than the uncertainty of a non-definition, so he is simply attempting to abide by the ethos of his doubt-filled creed?

First, I’d like to point out that I’ve been answering many questions, whereas Scott still hasn’t deigned to define certainty or uncertainty for us, which has prevented us from proceeding with the main subject. So, how about it, Scott? Are you cool with the dictionary definitions or is Delavagus correct and you have something else in mind?
Just for the sake of clarity, you advocate attempting to convince all women to voluntarily not work. You don’t advocate forcing them to not work, right?
I don’t think it’s necessary to force anyone not to work. Most women of the important class don’t really want to, not after they have actual experience of it. But I would go a little farther than simply attempting to convince women, I advise removing the incentives that encourage women to enter the labor force and provide them with incentives to bear and raise children instead.
The basic problem is that since the doubling of women in the labor force from 1950 to 1975, and concomitant reduction of wage rates, married women who don’t want to work are forced to if they wish to maintain the standard of living a one-income family once had.
Is this [changing  positions on the drug war] really an example of you being (proven) wrong, though? It was incompatable with your beliefs.
Yes. A friend pointed out the logical inconsistency to me.
Is there some method by which you could be shown to be wrong on the womens rights (or even shown to not be so certain of how it aught to be)? You seem to say your belief changed – but what was the changing method and can anyone else have a hand in that?
Of course. But it’s unlikely, since I’ve looked at it in more depth than most. The method involved looking at the societal effects over the course of the last 90 years, and it rapidly became clear that the predictions made by opponents of women’s suffrage were largely correct and those made by its supporters were incorrect. Furthermore, there are a whole host of problems, mostly rooted in economics, that were never anticipated by either side.
Seems a legacy argument? Legacy, Eg: Well, if we give all these slaves freedom, who will work the plantation! Economic ruin! Thus slavery aught to continue.
No, you’re making the mistake of confusing a forward-looking perspective with a retrospective one. In the correct analogy to the case we’re discussing, we’re considering that pro-slavery argument from amidst the economic ruins. As it happens, that pro-slavery argument was subsequently proven wrong by events, as were the pro-suffrage arguments.
if we assume that women are technically human, and we assert that we value human liberty, shouldn’t we support their desire to work as much as we would support a man’s desire to smoke some nice (almost) harmless weed due to both being a special case of general human liberty ?
Not necessarily. This is the common error committed by many of my fellow libertarians. For example, consider open borders. That seemingly libertarian position is actually anti-freedom, as there would be nothing to stop China from sending 30 million Chinese to the UK and 55 million to the USA, gaining voting rights, then voting to sign a treaty of surrender to the Chinese government. Maximizing human liberty in the aggregate is not perfectly synonymous with maximizing all individual human liberty.
However, if he supports bypassing persuasion and going straight for coercion, things take a decidedly ominous turn. But relying only on persuasion immediately suggests the practical improbability of the proposition, and this is why I think it’s proper to feel uneasy about even theoretically suggesting it. What really is the point to suggesting a counterfactual that has no chance of being realized?
There is a long gap between persuasion and coercion. As I said, I favor incentives, not force. But it’s not a counterfactual that has no chance of being realized. The coercion and oppression of Western women by force will come if their behavioral trends are not changed, and changed in the next 30 years. The socio-sexual and demographic trends are fairly clear. Who would have imagined, in 1973, when wages peaked and the divorce/abortion equalitarian program was implemented into US law, that there would be honor killings in the USA and Europe only thirty years later? Societies that rest upon structural incoherencies always collapse sooner or later. Feminist equalitarianism is actually a less coherent and less realistic ideology than Soviet communism was, and it probably won’t last the 72 years that the Soviet system did. It’s only been 39 years and the problems are rapidly building up throughout the West.

Labels:

99 Comments:

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 10:25 AM  

Maximizing human liberty in the aggregate is not perfectly synonymous with maximizing all individual human liberty.

This is an important concept that many libertarians will not learn. They are hell-bent on individual liberty above all, never recognizing that individual liberty alone as the highest virtue is self-destructive, not to mention unachievable.

Anonymous Daniel April 20, 2012 10:36 AM  

Liberty for thee and not for me. It is the weirdest chaff of all - akin to the old espionage concept of "blown cover as cover." Smells like meat, tastes like slow poison.

Libertarian Hegemony.

Anonymous Luke April 20, 2012 10:38 AM  

My wife and I are just over 2 months from being blessed by twins (our first children in this marriage). She gave her 2 weeks' notice at work the other day. Her supervisors were completely surprised, expecting her to remain an employee, just taking off the usual 6 weeks maternity leave, then stowing the inconveniences in wetback daycare until ready for public school daycare. Her coworkers were largely jealous, wistful over the idea of escaping one more place that's taken "do more with less" way too far for far too long. (Transfers out of the department in which my wife works have been banned for months, after too many escaped, so now they quit instead.)

Agreed that 9-5 M-F isn't as attractive to many women after a few years, however the MM says it's the only way they can be happy. My wife's coworkers certainly don't agree with the MM on this...

Anonymous RINO April 20, 2012 10:49 AM  

R Scott Bakker is trying very hard to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Anonymous Yorzhik April 20, 2012 11:07 AM  

For example, consider open borders. That seemingly libertarian position is actually anti-freedom, as there would be nothing to stop China from sending 30 million Chinese to the UK and 55 million to the USA, gaining voting rights, then voting to sign a treaty of surrender to the Chinese government.

That wouldn't be an argument against freedom, but an argument against voting.

Yet, there is one aspect that cannot be forgotten when discussing freedom of the labor force, that being that no country is obliged to accept any immigrant. It's just a smart idea to accept them in most cases. For instance if the Chinese want to send 55 million in 1 year, the gov't is free to stop them.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 11:14 AM  

Yorzhik,

Are you agreeing with Vox or not? Your point is not clear.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 11:14 AM  

the way to solve immigration is through ending the welfare state and restoring property rights. and ending minimum wage laws.

Anonymous Daniel April 20, 2012 11:30 AM  

Magical ponies. You forgot magical ponies.

Anonymous RINO April 20, 2012 11:36 AM  

Step 1: Restore Property Rights
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Immigration solved!

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 11:36 AM  

Josh,

What fantasy world are you living in? Property rights still exist, yet illegal immigration continues.

Minimum wage is hardly the reason for illegal immigration. Most illegals might work for less than the average American, but they are not working for $4 an hour.

I am not sure if you are delusional or just ignorant.

Blogger SarahsDaughter April 20, 2012 11:39 AM  

Type slowlier Josh.

Blogger DW April 20, 2012 11:43 AM  

Post troops to guard the border, expel the illegals thatre here, pass stricter citizenship laws. Problem solved.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 11:46 AM  

who, me?

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 11:50 AM  

Watch out DW, you're siding with that terrible New World Order that hides in secret rooms and their only goal in life is to take away our freedoms.

Being overrun with illegals is obviously preferable to bowing to "them"!

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 11:54 AM  

What fantasy world are you living in? Property rights still exist, yet illegal immigration continues.Minimum wage is hardly the reason for illegal immigration. Most illegals might work for less than the average American, but they are not working for $4 an hour.I am not sure if you are delusional or just ignorant.

By property rights I mean end all anti discrimination laws, restore free association, and privatize border security.

And ending the minimum wage would create less incentives for companies to hire illegals. I would also reduce other employment related regulations.

Anonymous civilServant April 20, 2012 11:55 AM  

I don’t think it’s necessary to force anyone not to work. Most women of the important class don’t really want to, not after they have actual experience of it.

The important class? What is the important class?

Anonymous civilServant April 20, 2012 11:57 AM  

As I said, I favor incentives, not force.

Is not force simply strong incentive? At what point does incentive become de-facto force?

Anonymous MendoScot April 20, 2012 11:57 AM  

Related:

While the private sector picked up nearly 2.9 million jobs over the course of the recovery, women secured only 23.5% of those positions.

Women gained only 12.3% of the more than 2.3 million total jobs added to the economy during the recovery - which include both public and private positions - according to the National Women's Law Center.

Much of the blame lies in the steep loss of government jobs, particularly in local school districts, where women predominate.

Anonymous Beef Jerky April 20, 2012 11:58 AM  

the way to solve immigration is through ending the welfare state and restoring property rights. and ending minimum wage laws.

Ending the welfare state? Yes. Property rights and minimum wage laws? Not so much. Those guys down at the 7/11 don't work for minimum wage. Neither do the H-B1's working at Microsoft or Google.

Government issued federal ID cards and a constitutional amendment authorizing mandatory impromptu F-ID verification.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick April 20, 2012 11:58 AM  

I am impressed about how civil the tone is of the discourse you provided. Are you working on improving your diplomacy skills?

Anonymous civilServant April 20, 2012 12:00 PM  

Who would have imagined, in 1973, when wages peaked and the divorce/abortion equalitarian program was implemented into US law, that there would be honor killings in the USA and Europe only thirty years later?

There does not appear to be any social or cultural or legal connection between those who implemented the equalitarian program then and those who practice the honor killings now.

Anonymous civilServant April 20, 2012 12:07 PM  

Maximizing human liberty in the aggregate is not perfectly synonymous with maximizing all individual human liberty.

And if one reverses the order of that statement? If one advocates maximizing all individual human liberty then does this stop at any border? And if so then why? One may cite many reasons why but then one is no longer advocating individual human liberty. Yes?

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 12:11 PM  

"As it happens, that pro-slavery argument was subsequently proven wrong by events, as were the pro-suffrage arguments."

not to totally derail this thing over a tangent... but this is not correct. Several of the most terrible pro-slavery predictions have in fact come true. The pro-slavery folks predicted in fact that the cities would be abandoned by whites and the blacks would return to their more native behaviors over time eventually requiring a near military level police force to maintain order. It predicted blacks would become poorer... less educated... and crime would sky rocket.

That was from an editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 1859.

Anonymous the abe April 20, 2012 12:13 PM  

How has Vox's position on drug policy changed?

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 12:16 PM  

Apparently at one point Vox was pro-War on Drugs... and is obviously now agin it.

Anonymous civilServant April 20, 2012 12:18 PM  

That was from an editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 1859.

May I request a cite.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:20 PM  

recovery racis

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:22 PM  

hell fucking no...if that's not totalitarian...I don't know what is...

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 12:25 PM  

Josh:

By property rights I mean end all anti discrimination laws, restore free association, and privatize border security.

And ending the minimum wage would create less incentives for companies to hire illegals. I would also reduce other employment related regulations.


While there are infringements on property rights, none of what you listed has anything to do with illegal immigration. Even if we were to eliminate discrimination laws, it would have little to no effect on illegals. Privatizing border security is something that simply won't happen. In fact, it's to some extent privatized now--people can keep illegals off their lawn. However, they don't, and the number of invaders is too great for a few people to stop.

You have bought into the great Rothbardian myth that a few people on the border will keep the illegals out for the rest of us. That isn't going to happen.

The other things you note about minimum wage are not a factor either. You need a better argument than the surface arguments of a libertarian pipe dream.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:27 PM  

" Privatizing border security is something that simply won't happen."

That's a brilliant discussion of the merits

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 12:27 PM  

Josh: recovery racis
Josh: hell fucking no...if that's not totalitarian...I don't know what is...

Your attempt at being witty is falling short. You could try to make a better argument or explain why he is wrong.

Are you an anarchist of the libertarian variety? (Murray Rothbard style)

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 12:28 PM  

"May I request a cite."

You already got one. 1859. Atlanta Journal Constitution.

You suppose its online? I doubt it. JAC and I have copies of a reproduction of the editorial reprinted in various books for what that is worth. I verified the authenticity myself though when I found a book compiling ancient editorials in a little Nashville bookstore near Vanderbilt. They wanted 3 grand for the book and I didn't buy it... but they did let me look through it and I found an editorial there that made the same predictions. I don't know how else you could verify such a thing... as there are not many 153 year old newspapers around.

I may be able to provide the whole editorial if you want to see it.. but that wouldn't verify the thing unless you could actually see it printed in the paper right?

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 20, 2012 12:28 PM  

Actually, all you have to do is get rid of the welfare state, and most of the wetbacks will go home on their own. It's stupid leftist white guilt trips, not economics, bringing illegal migrants into America.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 12:28 PM  

Josh: That's a brilliant discussion of the merits

There's no need to make a discussion, I already made my point. If you actually had read what I stated, you would see that I went on to say:

The Gray Man In fact, it's to some extent privatized now--people can keep illegals off their lawn. However, they don't, and the number of invaders is too great for a few people to stop.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 12:31 PM  

Galt-in-Da-Box: Actually, all you have to do is get rid of the welfare state, and most of the wetbacks will go home on their own. It's stupid leftist white guilt trips, not economics, bringing illegal migrants into America.

This is simply not true. The former argument was that once the economy "busted", they would all go back. This was shown to be false (here's looking at YOU, Ron Paul).

They are here and they are here to stay. Mexico is a terrible place to live. Why would you return? Not only that, the reconquista is becoming more and more of a cultural (La Raza) and Mexican-government-sponsored problem. Anyone who believes ending the welfare state will make illegals return to Mexico is as delusional as they are stupid.

Anonymous RINO April 20, 2012 12:32 PM  

Josh:

1) What in the last 50 years has led you to believe Americans are vigilant enough in regards to immigration?

2) Who is going to repeal minimum wage laws and how?

3) Did America have a large number of immigrants prior to the welfare state?

Anonymous RocketSurgeon April 20, 2012 12:34 PM  

For example, consider open borders. That seemingly libertarian position is actually anti-freedom, as there would be nothing to stop China from sending 30 million Chinese to the UK and 55 million to the USA, gaining voting rights, then voting to sign a treaty of surrender to the Chinese government.

If treaties were voted upon in direct democratic fashion, then you'd be right. But I'd think The Senate would have something to say about it, not to mention the 300+ million other Americans already here. So, the argument is nullified. Open borders are still the best answer for immigration reform.

And, Gray Man, "individual liberty alone as the highest virtue is self-destructive, not to mention unachievable" is true only if one does not know the difference between “Liberty” and “License.”

License is believing you can whatever you want because nobody's stopping you. It's the abandonment of governance that your statement rightly warns against.

Liberty is the ability to do the right thing without being forced to by government. It respects the existence of, and abides by, modes of governance other than the coercive state.

That's a big difference. It's what most Conservatives miss and most Liberals wish would go away.

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 12:34 PM  

AH!

There is no ebook available... but you can look around and find a book called "Proslavery: A History of the Defense of Slavery in America, 1701 - 1840

It doesn't have the exact editorial but similar predictions are made throughout.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:35 PM  

Your attempt at being witty is falling short. You could try to make a better argument or explain why he is wrong.Are you an anarchist of the libertarian variety? (Murray Rothbard style)

Regarding a national federal id card is another step on the road to an authoritarian and totalitarian police state. If you can't see the dangers of that, you haven't been paying attention.

And yes, of course I am a rothbardian. Governments are merely dangerous gangs of armed criminals.

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 12:35 PM  

The Gray Man: "In fact, it's to some extent privatized now--people can keep illegals off their lawn. However, they don't, and the number of invaders is too great for a few people to stop."

This is flatly false. Farmers in New Mexico have gone to jail defending their property from illegals.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 20, 2012 12:36 PM  

An issue that continually arises when right-wing Papist atheo-illogy is palmed off as libertarian.
Real Libertarianism DOES mean "freedom for EVERYONE, not just you". It also means no egalitarian handicap system; no faked "equality" for the lazy, dishonest & irresponsible!

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 20, 2012 12:44 PM  

Yeah, right...
You have the right to own property til Der Holy Mother Schtaat rationalizes an excuse to take it away & "indefinately detain" your ass!

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:45 PM  

"1) What in the last 50 years has led you to believe Americans are vigilant enough in regards to immigration?2) Who is going to repeal minimum wage laws and how?3) Did America have a large number of immigrants prior to the welfare state?"

1) "vigilant"smacks of fascist or soviet defending the homeland type informant language. Regarding immigration, people do a much better job of protecting their private property than government thugs do. If the entire border was sold off to private interests, they would police their own land. Also, what makes you think that the government is going to be "vigilant"about immigration?

2) laws can be repealed by the same legislative bodies that passed them.

3) yes, there was immigration, but absent a welfare state, immigrants were less of drain on resources...also, there has been a much greater influx of immigrants since welfare...and note that illegals left alabama when they cut off welfare benefits to illegals...

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 20, 2012 12:50 PM  

They'll be here as long as delusional, ignorant Romneyites like yourself keep paying their puntas to crank out cucarachas on welfare, while Pedro mows your lawn for $5/hour under the table. That's the truth!

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:50 PM  

" Anyone who believes ending the welfare state will make illegals return to Mexico is as delusional as they are stupid."

Tell that to the state of alabama

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 12:53 PM  

also ending the welfare state would force people currently on welfare to look for jobs, providing a source of laborto replace the illegal immigrants

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 20, 2012 12:57 PM  

Hey genius, WE ARE the "New World Order", have been since 1789, and are exactly what Like-Everybody-Elsers like Soros, HITLERyClit & Boner want to get rid of!

OpenID rsbakker April 20, 2012 12:58 PM  

I'm afraid I simply misinterpreted your question. As I have directly replied to you SEVERAL times (without response) I'm perfectly fine with you providing your definition, so that I could then frame my argument in your terms, and so avoid arguing at cross purposes. I initially thought you wanted to debate the TRUE meaning of 'certainty' - and as I stated quite clearly, I have no interest in such debates simply because of the notorious intractibility of conceptual arguments.

If you simply want my definition as I use it, that's no problem whatsoever - and I'm frankly confused why you wouldn't say as much in your responses (as slight as they have been) to my queries. (Should I suspect you were hoping for a scenario like this, where you could make some kind of face-saving public claim regarding my evasiveness? Blame it on my inability to read your super-intelligent mind instead.)

For me to be 'certain about X' refers to the tendency to declare exclusive commitment to the claims made about X, such that you deny the truth or reliability of incompatible claims.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 20, 2012 1:04 PM  

Grey Man has clearly bought the propaganda of Soros, "crybaby" Boner & the freaking Like-Everybody-Elsers who feel America is evil and owes the rest of the world - especially Israel - three hot slops and a flop from cradle to grave. They aren't gonna figure it out til the "poor, oppressed victims of our decadent capitalist society" outnumber them & knife them in the back.
Remember: NeoCON=Socialist!

Anonymous RINO April 20, 2012 1:12 PM  

None of your solutions have a basis in practical reality. It takes only one "private interest" who is indifferent to immigration or actively encourages it to buy border property and keep the gates open.

If the libertarian agenda is fully enacted we are told that this country will be free and prosperous, so I'd have to repeat: why would they stop coming? You guys only look at the pull and not the push .. there were plenty of immigrants prior to the 1960's, or even prior to the 1930's. Even if the welfare state magically disappears we still have ... uh ... civilization?

And lastly, we've only been looking at this from an economic view but Gray Man pointed out something else that is important, the cultural:

"This view is reflected in a recent Zogby poll. The poll revealed that 58% of Mexicans believe that the southwest U.S. belongs to Mexico. That probably explains why 60% of Mexicans also believe there should be no border control."

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 1:17 PM  

Nate This is flatly false. Farmers in New Mexico have gone to jail defending their property from illegals.

Point taken. We also might never hear of how many people actually do defend their property, because that isn't going to be in the news. There is no way to know for sure on this. There are other suitable arguments such as the one Rino made at 1:12 PM which shows the property-rights argument for border control doesn't work.

Anonymous VD April 20, 2012 1:18 PM  

What is the important class?

Married women between the ages of 18-40.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 1:20 PM  

Josh: Regarding a national federal id card is another step on the road to an authoritarian and totalitarian police state. If you can't see the dangers of that, you haven't been paying attention.

And yes, of course I am a rothbardian. Governments are merely dangerous gangs of armed criminals.


Why are you so scared of this authoritarian and totalitarian police state? I'm not in favor of it, and I am not in favor of a federal ID card either. However, your fear is unjustified--it would be better to have federal ID cards than to have no civilization at all because it has been overrun by savage third worlders.

I believe there are other ways to get rid of the illegals (deportation most notably), but a federal ID card would be a better (if still terrible) step in at least attempting to preserve civilization.

You don't see the dangers in what lies ahead. Stop reading Rothbard on anything other than economics, you're doing yourself and the country more harm than good.

As Vox has said, anyone who believes governments should not exist should not be taken seriously. It is an imaginative and foolish position.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 1:22 PM  

Galt-in-Da-Box: They'll be here as long as delusional, ignorant Romneyites like yourself keep paying their puntas to crank out cucarachas on welfare, while Pedro mows your lawn for $5/hour under the table. That's the truth!

Illegals are not working for $5 an hour in most cases. They are working for $8, $10 and $12 when Americans are demanding $18 or $25.

I do not support Romney and you are showing your ignorance. You've already lost this argument, pay closer attention to Vox's positions on immigration and his explanation of its detrimental effect to society instead of spouting nonsense you've picked up from other introverted idiots on libertarian forums.

Anonymous VD April 20, 2012 1:24 PM  

If you simply want my definition as I use it, that's no problem whatsoever - and I'm frankly confused why you wouldn't say as much in your responses (as slight as they have been) to my queries. (Should I suspect you were hoping for a scenario like this, where you could make some kind of face-saving public claim regarding my evasiveness? Blame it on my inability to read your super-intelligent mind instead.)

Then why didn't you simply provide it when asked? And in answer to your question, no, I couldn't care less if you want to eviscerate your own credibility by refusing to answer simple and straightforward questions. You really need to stop trying to psychoanalyze others you don't know, as it only makes you look rather stupid.

Anonymous civilServant April 20, 2012 1:26 PM  

It doesn't have the exact editorial but similar predictions are made throughout.

Thank you. I will try to find it.

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 1:29 PM  

Rino's point has a glaring weakness.

They would stop coming because they aren't coming for opertunity or freedom.

They are coming for handouts.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 1:32 PM  

" However, your fear is unjustified--it would be better to have federal ID cards than to have no civilization at all because it has been overrun by savage third worlders.."

because governments never misuse power against their citizens...

Blogger Giraffe April 20, 2012 1:34 PM  

They are coming for handouts.

And work. Stop hiring, stop handouts. They leave.

But the state of Nebraska just overode the Governor's veto and will be providing free prenatal care to illegals. Because, you know, the baby will be an American. Deportation of pregnant women would be cheaper.

Anonymous Josh April 20, 2012 1:41 PM  

" But the state of Nebraska just overode the Governor's veto and will be providing free prenatal care to illegals. Because, you know, the baby will be an American. Deportation of pregnant women would be cheaper"

RACIS

Anonymous Noah B. April 20, 2012 1:46 PM  

Not sure why you're wasting your time with someone this indirect and evasive, Vox. It strikes me that you'll have more luck catching a warm fart than getting a straight answer.

Anonymous WinstonWebb April 20, 2012 1:52 PM  

Paraphrase: "Ending welfare will end illegal immigration".

This is false. It will end illegal freeloader immigration. I don't fault at all the Mexican that wants to come here, pick produce, make a better wage than he could in his third world county, and send the money back home. As long as he's not getting subsidized housing, food stamps, WIC cards, "free" healthcare, and "free" education for his kids, then it seems like a pretty good deal for both parties.

Anonymous antonym April 20, 2012 1:55 PM  

Doesn't open borders violate freedom of association? That seems like the simplest argument to me.

Anonymous RINO April 20, 2012 1:58 PM  

It's entertaining trying to watch people attempt to balance paranoia of any authority with being hawkish on demographics. It simply doesn't work. The difficult solutions needed require a lot of money and coordination that would either have to come from government/law enforcement or the equally dangerous populist mob. It's the constitutional duty of the government to protect the states from invasion.

Conditions simply aren't favorable to any of the piecemeal plans I have seen libertarians offer. 50% of Americans are perfectly fine with letting illegals stay who don't have criminal records. Many businesses are fine with them for economic reasons and Democratic/liberal causes are fine with them for political reasons.

When you have a first world nation with high standards of living next to a failing state with near third world conditions I would argue that a certain portion of people will try to emigrate even with the absence of "direct" government hand outs in the first world nation.

That is why they need to build a physical barrier on the Mexican border supplemented by manpower and newer technology. This can be followed by cracking down on employers, allowing for self-deportation, and then finally forced deportation. To start arguing about being "kept in" is ridiculous as that is akin to someone closing up the front door of a house that has 4 doors and 12 windows while the occupants scream about being imprisoned.

Anonymous Suomynona April 20, 2012 2:04 PM  

The most effective incentive in any society is the nonstop and pervasive propaganda that is broadcast via the mass media and other means of mass communication, which are then reinforced, reflected in the culture and societal attitudes. In our society, incentive has increased to the point where it has become Political Correctness, the most insidious and powerful form of incentive - in many cases even more powerful than the written laws.

If everything one saw and read about suddenly turned anti-illegal alien, anti-diversity, anti-suffrage, anti-women in the work force, pro-marriage, pro-family, the society would change accordingly, and laws would get passed to reflect this change. Homo-marriage didn't happen until the society was thoroughly and filthily saturated with the pro-fag propaganda. Even now there is still resistance but the population has been sufficiently brainwashed that its proponents aren't immediately run out of town. PCness takes care of those who haven't submitted.

TPTB are not elected by the people, don't abide by any stinking laws, and have the power and means to do whatever it takes to push their agenda. As such, no law nor incentive that would effectively counter their goals has a chance in hell of seeing the light of day. And the people are too corrupt, brainwashed and/or lazy to fight it. PCness takes care of those who dare speak up or act.

The blabbering buffoons at Bakker's get the vapors over the mere suggestion of incentive, yet have no problem vilifying anyone who goes against their politically correct positions, the side on which they are firmly and certainly planted.

Anonymous bw April 20, 2012 2:38 PM  

this is why I think it’s proper to feel uneasy about even theoretically suggesting it

Perfect. The Nazi thought police are, in actuality, the very thing they claim to hate. Cowards to the point of not even being able to imagine a possible theory. You don't have to engage (and fail to defeat the "theoretical) if you can simply nix "thinking" in the first place.

Anonymous Yorzhik April 20, 2012 2:45 PM  

Are you agreeing with Vox or not? Your point is not clear.

I'm disagreeing with Vox. The problem in his scenario is not immigration per se. It is a combination of problems with voting and with a nation's right to disallow immigration at will. In other words, it is wise for a nation to allow someone to enter the country because people are assets, not liabilities. However no nation is obligated to let any particular person in.

Voting is just a bad idea.

Anonymous Noah B. April 20, 2012 2:54 PM  

If only these idiots were as averse to the many other forms of government coercion that are now omnipresent. Instead, when coercion suits their own purposes, this crowd is fully content to engage in it, or at the very least, to look the other way and ignore what they have enabled.

Anonymous The Gray Man April 20, 2012 3:16 PM  

Josh: Tell that to the state of alabama

I live in Alabama. While illegals are working less in certain industries, they certainly are not moving out in any large numbers. I have noticed no decline based on observation alone.

Anonymous FP April 20, 2012 3:17 PM  

Gray: "While there are infringements on property rights, none of what you listed has anything to do with illegal immigration."

The mind boggles. Others have pointed out border politics but there are more examples that are even worse. What do you think of property taxes (thats all for social welfare via public schools, free to immigrants)? You don't own land in this country you lease it from the government. Land use laws that effectively make it illegal to do much of anything with your land. The recent Idaho case that went to the Supreme Court over the EPA suing a couple over non wetlands or Kelo.

Anonymous Suomynona April 20, 2012 3:26 PM  

rsbakker April 20, 2012 12:58 PM - For me to be 'certain about X' refers to the tendency to declare exclusive commitment to the claims made about X, such that you deny the truth or reliability of incompatible claims.

That's absurd but not surprising. Your description of being certain about X describes several things, none of which is simply the meaning of certainty. You could be describing Political Correctness about X, or someone who is brainwashed about X - every case includes an element of deceit or delusion, having nothing to do with certainty in the usual meaning of the word. As is usual, your freaky ideology requires that you change the meaning of words to suit your twisted view of reality.

You don't like the concept of certainty, therefore anyone who claims certainty about X is either devious or deranged about X. You are unable to detach your personal view from the definition of the concept. And the hypocrisy is most amusing. Your description here relies on the observation of a tendency which is nothing more than pattern recognition - precisely the same mechanism by which people become certain of things.

Anonymous Suomynona April 20, 2012 3:30 PM  

In short, bakker, you are quite certain that people who are certain about X declare exclusive commitment to the claims made about X, such that they deny the truth or reliability of incompatible claims.

Anonymous Rusty Shackleford April 20, 2012 3:32 PM  

The AJC did not merge until he 1970's.

The Atlanta Journal started in 1883 and the Atlanta Constitution 1868.

I'm not sure how that article could exist. wikilink

Furthermore, the AJC is a rag of a paper, you'd get better news by talking to Atlanta's homeless.

Anonymous cherub's revenge April 20, 2012 3:41 PM  

civilServant: May I request a cite.

I don't know about Nate's AJC editorial, but a web search of "Fire Eaters+slavery" will give you all the published negative predictions about post-emancipation America you could ever want to read.

You would be hard-pressed to deny they were mostly correct.

Anonymous cherub's revenge April 20, 2012 3:58 PM  

Open borders are still the best answer for immigration reform.

That's not "reform", that's anarchy. That's the end of a nation. A nation with open borders is no nation at all.

Anonymous cherub's revenge April 20, 2012 4:00 PM  

By property rights I mean end all anti discrimination laws, restore free association, and privatize border security.

Ending anti-discrimination laws while importing more people who would benefit by the reinstatement of anti-discrimination laws. Yeah, that makes sense.

Anonymous III April 20, 2012 4:22 PM  

To start arguing about being "kept in" is ridiculous as that is akin to someone closing up the front door of a house that has 4 doors and 12 windows while the occupants scream about being imprisoned.

E. Germany.

Anyhow, the tyranny of good intentions is just that... tyranny. Plenty of totalitarian government have relied on good intentions.

DHS. TSA. VIPR Teams. PATRIOT Act. NDAA. Blah, blah, blah, Etc. I am sure you do keep up with all the national security hub-bub and our ever increasing for our safety police state... right? I'm not going to attempt to list even a few as I am sure I would be wasting my time. What is amazing, is that internet has brought us nose first into the reality of the increasing totalitarian police state and people still refuse to see it and just go along with it and, even say we need more... because golly, we need government to save us so a little bit of tyranny is actually good for us. Meh. Comrade. Federalized Nation ID cards will be good for us.

Anonymous III April 20, 2012 4:26 PM  

Make coming into our country illegally not worth the consequences of being caught. I am sure there are many consequences that one can come up with.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 20, 2012 5:11 PM  

Ending the War on Drugs will go a long way to curb illegal immigration or migration in general.

Of course, the power elite are making the US so crappy, the whole migration problem that Vox talks about may not be a problem in a few decades.

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 5:15 PM  

"The AJC did not merge until he 1970's.

The Atlanta Journal started in 1883 and the Atlanta Constitution 1868.

I'm not sure how that article could exist. wikilink

Furthermore, the AJC is a rag of a paper, you'd get better news by talking to Atlanta's homeless."

Whatever. It was an atlanta based newspaper at the time. I suggest you take the cherubs advice and do some googling. You find all the predictions you want... including the one I pointed out. Forgive my failed memory on the name of the paper.

Blogger JohnG April 20, 2012 5:17 PM  

One vice-type squad per state doing stings on employers using illegals with heavy duty fines would make a dent - one of the primary reasons guys (or the ones that call in on the radio shows) use them is because their competitors do, and if they towed the legal line they would go out of business. But finding them wouldn't be hard, the Soc. Sec. administration knows which SSNs are BS and so does the IRS. Prosecuting identity theft would be useful also.

Bah, there's probably 50 ways to do it, it all boils down to making the politicians do what they're supposed to do, and quit handing out incentives.

Blogger Nate April 20, 2012 5:26 PM  

"I live in Alabama. While illegals are working less in certain industries, they certainly are not moving out in any large numbers. I have noticed no decline based on observation alone."

I wonder if you pay attention to high school football.

If so you would know that suspiciously one friday night last season... teams found themselves without key players. Turns out it was right after the alabama supreme court held up the education bill that required proof of citizenship... and a huge number of mexicans just up and left the state.

I have a buddy that is a guidance councilor in TN... and I was telling him the story when he interrupted me and asked what the specific date was. It took some digging but we nailed it down... and it turns out that exact same week... the next friday and monday... there were huge influxes of new students in Nasvhille schools... almost all of which were mexican.

Anonymous pdimov April 20, 2012 6:52 PM  

rsbakker: For me to be 'certain about X' refers to the tendency to declare exclusive commitment to the claims made about X, such that you deny the truth or reliability of incompatible claims.

And, I presume, you value people who are less certain of things more highly? Is your valuation context-free, independent of X? If so, you're wrong. The goal is to estimate P(X) on the basis of the available information. If you always estimate it to be 0.5 (that would be perfectly uncertain and open-minded), you're indistinguishable from a coin flip (that estimates P(X) as 0 or 1, randomly) and have an effective IQ of 0. If the available information tends to point to X being true, you need to estimate P(X) as close to 1.

Anonymous zen0 April 20, 2012 7:14 PM  

Has anybody else noticed that X is the middle letter in Mexican?

That's one thing I am certain about.

Anonymous tabazco April 20, 2012 8:10 PM  

MMMMM....Perhaps Mel Gipson should say in the forthcoming'THE PATRIOT 2'"Mexican makes fine meal"!

Anonymous JartStar April 20, 2012 8:54 PM  

By far that was the most I've ever seen you comment on another blog; though you finally got the definition.

Anonymous zen0 April 20, 2012 9:00 PM  

We be talkin' "X", not "MG", Mr. "t".

Anonymous Suomynona April 20, 2012 11:24 PM  

Vox gets them chattering like irritated squirrels over there.

Anonymous Vidad April 21, 2012 12:45 AM  

The discussion was quite entertaining over there. I love when the fellow pops in with the comment about "Silicon Jesus." Ha!

Anonymous Idle Spectator April 21, 2012 12:46 AM  

Current theme song for the destruction of America through Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Immigration:

Burn Baby, Burn

I heard somebody say "burn baby, burn." Disco inferno! Burn baby, burn. Burn the mutha down!


The current structure of society will be as dead as disco soon enough.

Anonymous Outlaw X April 21, 2012 12:49 AM  

Vox, why do you even bother? This is not a rhetorical question.

I am not you, so I am not telling you anything you don't already know. I just wonder sometimes how you choose your fights? I choose mine and I could elaborate on that, but I already know why I do. I was wondering how you choose yours? Everyone chooses fights, some just for the fun of it. Other serious people have a reason, what is yours?

I once had a supervisor tell me you have to be careful how you choose your fights. He was a smart man.

Anonymous Outlaw X April 21, 2012 1:18 AM  

Current theme song for the destruction of America through Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Immigration:

"Burn Baby, Burn

I heard somebody say "burn baby, burn." Disco inferno! Burn baby, burn. Burn the mutha down!


The current structure of society will be as dead as disco soon enough."

All empires come to an end, America is no exception. The stupefied keep on just like Nazi Germany. The most educated people in the world who bought us Einstein were taken in by the propaganda and pretty pictures of an unachievable utopia. Now the dumb down masses of what used to be America are repeating history. Because they don't know history.

Anonymous Outlaw X April 21, 2012 1:23 AM  

Redo to make it more clear.

Current theme song for the destruction of America through Feminism, Multiculturalism, and Immigration:

"Burn Baby, Burn

I heard somebody say "burn baby, burn." Disco inferno! Burn baby, burn. Burn the mutha down!


The current structure of society will be as dead as disco soon enough."


All empires come to an end, America is no exception. The stupefied keep on just like Nazi Germany. The most educated people in the world who bought us Einstein were taken in by the propaganda and pretty pictures of an unachievable utopia. Now the dumb down masses of what used to be America are repeating history. Because they don't know history.

Anonymous realmatt April 21, 2012 1:48 AM  

"if we assume that women are technically human, and we assert that we value human liberty, shouldn’t we support their desire to work as much as we would support a man’s desire to smoke some nice (almost) harmless weed due to both being a special case of general human liberty ?"

That's one of the stupidest questions ever conceived.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo April 21, 2012 2:23 AM  

Ah, but doesn't the rise of the "breadwoman," as mentioned in Liza Mundy's The Richer Sex, disprove this very line of thought about working women? It's amazing that Vox never even addressed it.

Anonymous Faust April 21, 2012 3:31 AM  

CrisisEraDynamo-

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

What the hell is a Breadwoman?

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo April 21, 2012 5:12 AM  

My apologies -- I should've been clearer.

A "breadwoman" is Mundy's term for a female breadwinner.

Anonymous E. PERLINE April 21, 2012 8:54 AM  

The Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinal has revived the issue that women's salaries are only 80% of men's for similar work. They don't analyze whether the work is really similar.

If the work was really similar, and employers could save 20% in wages by hiring women instead of men, wouldn't they do it?

I'm reminded of the time I worked for the U.S. Tennis Open. Thanks to the efforts of Billie Jean King, a lesbian tennis player, women won prize money equal to the men.

It's still that way, although everyone admits that compared to the men, the quality of women's tennis is strictly minor league.

Anonymous ICP April 21, 2012 11:15 AM  

Indeed, it's equal pay for less work, considering that men play best of five sets in the majors.

However, the value of the players in these tournaments is largely in their ability to attract an audience and thereby to sell advertising. Everyone will also admit that even if female tennis players are not at a level equivalent to the men, they draw viewers for reasons that are, let's say, orthogonal to their skill at tennis.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts