"You are claiming that we have no right to determine who we let into our country."
Actually, I have repeatedly stated that I am in favor of keeping out the "bad" sorts of immigrants (terrorists, etcs). I think that the government (that is really what you are referring to, not "we") has a right to do this. I also think that the government has a right to keep out the "good" guys, even if I myself see that it makes no sense at all to keep out an immigrant just because they are a better worker or belong to an "inferior brown race" hated by Buchanan and Duke.
"Worse, you deny that there has been an ongoing government enforcement of violation of the sort of freedom of association you claim we possess in our private affairs."
I am fully aware that the government (lodging laws, etc) does violate freedom of association in many ways, including lodging laws (Holiday Inn owner denying lodging to a black person, etc).
"Read up how the Supreme Court has ruled about Title VII and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights
Acts as preventing you from forming businesses or even making contracts based on criteria for associations of which the government disapproves"
And you claim to be against totalitarian governments and abusive elites....
"may be incarcerated and raped by a "minority" gang"
Is this what it all boils down to? Sexual hangups and racial stereotypes (i.e. unaware of the fact that most rapists are white).
"However, what is a more important effect is that illegal aliens are counted for purposes of representation by the census-that effect is less obviously one that benefits democrats"
Making it even more complicated is the fact that a certain political party (guess which one) is working to destroy the census by making it much less accurate. They want to suplement actual counted individuals with any number of phantoms made up using trendy "statistical" methods that don't require actual counting.
Fortunately, so far, the powers that be have maintained that you really have to count only real people in the census.
30 years after its cancellation, Cosmo Kramer will somehow managed to find the set for the TV show "Survivor" sitting intact in a dumpster. He will set it up as an indoor tropical island in his apartment, and invite his guests over for "challenges" and to be "voted off the island". Since the episode involves a high likelihood of Newman competing naked, I don't think I'll be tuning in at all.
"Your specious distinction between "basic freedom" and "fundament human right" won't save your credibility."
Nor does it give you much credibility to change a different term into something else, and argue against that.
"Anyone who recognizes the fact that freedom of association is, not simply a cornerstone, but the foundation of all human rights"
Yet you argue against it.
"sees you as a totalitarian tyrant who is a participant in the greatest current crime against humanity"
Again, I am arguing for freedom of association. If you do not like immigrants, do not associate with them. Don't have the government force your choice in a tyrannical fashion on others.
What is so wrong about immigrants? Is it that some of them do some jobs better? You alluded to that earlier.
"David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche have both faced substantial harrassment recently"
David Duke has spent many years running swindle-scams. Not only that, he is a genocidal maniac with a long membership in one of the oldest organized crime organizations in the US (the KKK). Do you place this criminal on the same level with the Chicago 7 peace activists?
"I would suggest this is because the issues they bring up are more likely to split the Bush coalition"
Pat Buchanan took the racist wing of the GOP with him when he left. They are not part of the "Bush coalition". The same goes for La Rouche: With his paranoid ravings about the Queen of England, he is not part of any coalition.
Come on, do you have any real dissidents? So far, you came up with a real criminal, and one silly boob that only makes people laugh.
"What you continually miss is the extent to which the _companies_ involved work the system form private gain."
I miss it because the main issue here is the freedom of individuals, which outnumber the companies involved. Greatly.
"and handle other externalities like the rise in uninsured drivers, auto theft"
Mandatory auto insurance is a racket that benefits insurance companies (there's the corporate elites for you!). Auto theft? There are plenty of non-immigrant auto thieves.
"If companies paid those costs, they'd be much less enthusiastic about using the labor of illegal aliens"
Ideally, they should pay the workers for the value of the work, and not have to make arbitrary payments to the government for non-existent costs.
And, in the quote, you never even showed me saying "fundamental human right". You are arguing against something you made up, something I never said.
"What is beign given to the corporations..."
Nothing is being given to corporations in this.
"What is being taken from the majority of the US citizens, are flower lowered immigration levels"
Yet, you want this freedom of association to be decided entirely by the ruling elites, and not the population.
"their wish to pay less money in labor costs"
What is wrong with hiring better workers? It should be my choice, not the government's.
You are using a twisted definition of "totalitarian", in which allowing individuals freedom is "totalitarian" and having the ruling class force one thing on everyone is not.
If you don't like immigrants, don't employ them, sell to them, buy from them, or invite them in your cottage for tea. Why not let it go at that? Why force these personal decisions on your neighbors and everyone else?
If they are good productive workers, they should not need government benefits, should they? They would end up paying taxes and receiving what a "normal" American gets.
They vote in large numbers now. Since they tend to vote mostly for Democrats, the Democrat Party is dead set against measures that would make sure that voters are legally qualified to vote.: Democrats lose if you get rid of bogus votes. Looks like we will have this problem for quite some time.
"How about when a group of families together own a larger piece of land with covenants governing their association? "
Are you talking about ethnically-pure ethnic conclaves of the Bo Gritz type? Nothing wrong with this, unless you go what they did in Couer d'Alene: attack people on public property.
"There is a huge difference between arguing that its good to expand immigration"
I have a big problem with immigrants coming here not to work, but to suck on the public teat and laze on the vast welfare hammock. If these people were kept out, while letting the "good" ones in, immigration might possibly go down.
However, I think it is bad to exclude certain immigrants on the sole criterion that they are good productive workers.
The "mass media" is much more of a mirror of society than you think: the system is made so that it reflects what is going on. There is no brainwashing.
"Can anyone enter your family's property to "seek a better life"?"
No, property rights are not violated by this. The immigrants have to be subject to the same trespassing limitations the non-immigrants are subject to.
Is a body of law, such as the Constitution, invalid because it gives the association the right to exclude
You seem to be using it to defend the rights of the elites (government) to force this exclusion on everyone, instead of letting the people decide.
"There is a huge difference between arguing that its good to expand immigration and arguing that immigration is a fundamental human right"
I don't think it is a fundamental human right. I just think it is a good thing when hard working "good citizen" types immigrate. Additionally, the "better life" is not only sought by the immigrants. It is sought also by those who they pay rent to, those they buy from, and those who employ them: they do these things to further their interests, as well.
I am being rather anti-totalitarian here: for the people being allowed to choose to associate with immigrants, or not (or trade with foreigners, or not) instead of having the government force one choice on all.
What are you on about? I was agreeing with your statement about affirmative action. And yes, affirmative action is about nothing other than punishing people for being of the wrong skin color. It was not even about immigration: it was about burdensome regulation. Read your own parent.
My first request: What exactly IS the secret to royal breeding? I really want to know how you came up with such a perfect moral and physical specimin as the Prince of Wales. Such perfection cannot arise in the inferior non-noble classes, surely!
This one throws a monkey-wrench in the works of the old "hacker vs cracker" argument. If someone is a redneck safe-cracking computer scientist from Georgia, what category do they fall into? Hmmm?
I agree with much of what you said (less locking horns on immigration. For example, "also burden of regulations like affirmative action legislation". Agreed. You don't excel when you put skin color first instead of excellence. The other points I'll let stand with a nod of affirmation.
However, in regards to "US has spent directly and indirectly about $1.2 Trillion defending middle eastern oil supplies". Even without this spending, we'd get the oil at pretty much the same price. The Saddam's of the world are more than happy to make sweetheart deals which give them exclusive profits domestically while the US gets cheap oil.
Actually, it should have been modded down "redundant". After I posted, I saw that there were already a couple like what I wrote. I violated the posting rule "Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said." Tsk tsk tsk.
But you do have a point. Since when is Microsoft-bashing considered to be "Trolling" on Slashdot?
"Considering that the Windows platform has never had the ability to parallel compute in the past"
Surely all those Windows PCs propagating Outlook/Office worms all at the same time over the Internet have to count for some sort of "parallel computing" !
"Chavez has been far, far more lenient on traitors than Bush ever, EVER would be"
Bush's intolerance of those who criticize him is well known. After their comments, the Dixie Chicks were imprisioned. They appeared nude on a magazine because they could not afford clothes anymore. Michael Moore opened his yap and as a result he is now a penniless rail-thin man seen hanging around outside of grocery stores.
"Not sure what point you are trying to make. Putin has erased democracy for all practical purposes"
I made the points earlier. It could be a lot better, but nothing in Russia is going on like the gulags and engineered famines which executed an average of 400,000 or so civilians each year during the Bolshevik "reign of terror" from the 1910s - 1980s. Maybe Putin wants to do this, but nothing like it is going on now. Not even in Chechnya, where the total death toll so far is probably similar to how many died in one week when Stalin was starving out the Ukraine.
I agree with everything you said about Putin. However, ol Dobby does not yet hold a candle to Lenin and Stalin.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I have repeatedly stated that I am in favor of keeping out the "bad" sorts of immigrants (terrorists, etcs). I think that the government (that is really what you are referring to, not "we") has a right to do this. I also think that the government has a right to keep out the "good" guys, even if I myself see that it makes no sense at all to keep out an immigrant just because they are a better worker or belong to an "inferior brown race" hated by Buchanan and Duke.
"Worse, you deny that there has been an ongoing government enforcement of violation of the sort of freedom of association you claim we possess in our private affairs."
I am fully aware that the government (lodging laws, etc) does violate freedom of association in many ways, including lodging laws (Holiday Inn owner denying lodging to a black person, etc).
"Read up how the Supreme Court has ruled about Title VII and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Acts as preventing you from forming businesses or even making contracts based on criteria for associations of which the government disapproves "
And you claim to be against totalitarian governments and abusive elites....
"may be incarcerated and raped by a "minority" gang"
Is this what it all boils down to? Sexual hangups and racial stereotypes (i.e. unaware of the fact that most rapists are white).
Making it even more complicated is the fact that a certain political party (guess which one) is working to destroy the census by making it much less accurate. They want to suplement actual counted individuals with any number of phantoms made up using trendy "statistical" methods that don't require actual counting.
Fortunately, so far, the powers that be have maintained that you really have to count only real people in the census.
30 years after its cancellation, Cosmo Kramer will somehow managed to find the set for the TV show "Survivor" sitting intact in a dumpster. He will set it up as an indoor tropical island in his apartment, and invite his guests over for "challenges" and to be "voted off the island". Since the episode involves a high likelihood of Newman competing naked, I don't think I'll be tuning in at all.
Does this mean that if we have a vote and 51% say "immigration yes", then you are a hypocritical totalitarian for wanting to end it?
Nor does it give you much credibility to change a different term into something else, and argue against that.
"Anyone who recognizes the fact that freedom of association is, not simply a cornerstone, but the foundation of all human rights"
Yet you argue against it.
"sees you as a totalitarian tyrant who is a participant in the greatest current crime against humanity"
Again, I am arguing for freedom of association. If you do not like immigrants, do not associate with them. Don't have the government force your choice in a tyrannical fashion on others.
What is so wrong about immigrants? Is it that some of them do some jobs better? You alluded to that earlier.
David Duke has spent many years running swindle-scams. Not only that, he is a genocidal maniac with a long membership in one of the oldest organized crime organizations in the US (the KKK). Do you place this criminal on the same level with the Chicago 7 peace activists?
"I would suggest this is because the issues they bring up are more likely to split the Bush coalition"
Pat Buchanan took the racist wing of the GOP with him when he left. They are not part of the "Bush coalition". The same goes for La Rouche: With his paranoid ravings about the Queen of England, he is not part of any coalition.
Come on, do you have any real dissidents? So far, you came up with a real criminal, and one silly boob that only makes people laugh.
I miss it because the main issue here is the freedom of individuals, which outnumber the companies involved. Greatly.
"and handle other externalities like the rise in uninsured drivers, auto theft"
Mandatory auto insurance is a racket that benefits insurance companies (there's the corporate elites for you!). Auto theft? There are plenty of non-immigrant auto thieves.
"If companies paid those costs, they'd be much less enthusiastic about using the labor of illegal aliens"
Ideally, they should pay the workers for the value of the work, and not have to make arbitrary payments to the government for non-existent costs.
And, in the quote, you never even showed me saying "fundamental human right". You are arguing against something you made up, something I never said.
"What is beign given to the corporations..."
Nothing is being given to corporations in this.
"What is being taken from the majority of the US citizens, are flower lowered immigration levels"
Yet, you want this freedom of association to be decided entirely by the ruling elites, and not the population.
"their wish to pay less money in labor costs"
What is wrong with hiring better workers? It should be my choice, not the government's.
You are using a twisted definition of "totalitarian", in which allowing individuals freedom is "totalitarian" and having the ruling class force one thing on everyone is not.
If you don't like immigrants, don't employ them, sell to them, buy from them, or invite them in your cottage for tea. Why not let it go at that? Why force these personal decisions on your neighbors and everyone else?
If they are good productive workers, they should not need government benefits, should they? They would end up paying taxes and receiving what a "normal" American gets.
They vote in large numbers now. Since they tend to vote mostly for Democrats, the Democrat Party is dead set against measures that would make sure that voters are legally qualified to vote.: Democrats lose if you get rid of bogus votes. Looks like we will have this problem for quite some time.
Are you talking about ethnically-pure ethnic conclaves of the Bo Gritz type? Nothing wrong with this, unless you go what they did in Couer d'Alene: attack people on public property.
"There is a huge difference between arguing that its good to expand immigration"
I have a big problem with immigrants coming here not to work, but to suck on the public teat and laze on the vast welfare hammock. If these people were kept out, while letting the "good" ones in, immigration might possibly go down.
However, I think it is bad to exclude certain immigrants on the sole criterion that they are good productive workers.
The "mass media" is much more of a mirror of society than you think: the system is made so that it reflects what is going on. There is no brainwashing.
No, property rights are not violated by this. The immigrants have to be subject to the same trespassing limitations the non-immigrants are subject to.
Is a body of law, such as the Constitution, invalid because it gives the association the right to exclude
You seem to be using it to defend the rights of the elites (government) to force this exclusion on everyone, instead of letting the people decide.
"There is a huge difference between arguing that its good to expand immigration and arguing that immigration is a fundamental human right"
I don't think it is a fundamental human right. I just think it is a good thing when hard working "good citizen" types immigrate. Additionally, the "better life" is not only sought by the immigrants. It is sought also by those who they pay rent to, those they buy from, and those who employ them: they do these things to further their interests, as well.
I am being rather anti-totalitarian here: for the people being allowed to choose to associate with immigrants, or not (or trade with foreigners, or not) instead of having the government force one choice on all.
What are you on about? I was agreeing with your statement about affirmative action. And yes, affirmative action is about nothing other than punishing people for being of the wrong skin color. It was not even about immigration: it was about burdensome regulation. Read your own parent.
Where have I done this? I think you have me confused with another.
My first request: What exactly IS the secret to royal breeding? I really want to know how you came up with such a perfect moral and physical specimin as the Prince of Wales. Such perfection cannot arise in the inferior non-noble classes, surely!
This one throws a monkey-wrench in the works of the old "hacker vs cracker" argument. If someone is a redneck safe-cracking computer scientist from Georgia, what category do they fall into? Hmmm?
However, in regards to "US has spent directly and indirectly about $1.2 Trillion defending middle eastern oil supplies". Even without this spending, we'd get the oil at pretty much the same price. The Saddam's of the world are more than happy to make sweetheart deals which give them exclusive profits domestically while the US gets cheap oil.
But you do have a point. Since when is Microsoft-bashing considered to be "Trolling" on Slashdot?
Surely all those Windows PCs propagating Outlook/Office worms all at the same time over the Internet have to count for some sort of "parallel computing" !
What if someone chooses to sell their property to an immigrant?
Tinfoil helmets do wonders in keeping out the mind-control "mass media" waves.
By the way, it is interesting that you label as "traitors" those that want a democratic, non-fascist government in Venezuela.
As for Chavez, never trust a man who looks like what Adam Sandler would have looked like if he had been raised on a diet of bad beef.
Bush's intolerance of those who criticize him is well known. After their comments, the Dixie Chicks were imprisioned. They appeared nude on a magazine because they could not afford clothes anymore. Michael Moore opened his yap and as a result he is now a penniless rail-thin man seen hanging around outside of grocery stores.
Dissent is not allowed.
I made the points earlier. It could be a lot better, but nothing in Russia is going on like the gulags and engineered famines which executed an average of 400,000 or so civilians each year during the Bolshevik "reign of terror" from the 1910s - 1980s. Maybe Putin wants to do this, but nothing like it is going on now. Not even in Chechnya, where the total death toll so far is probably similar to how many died in one week when Stalin was starving out the Ukraine.
I agree with everything you said about Putin. However, ol Dobby does not yet hold a candle to Lenin and Stalin.