Monday, April 10, 2006

Immigration Solution?

With the immigration protests bringing the issue to the forefront,
I've decided to think on the issue. The border is broken. We know it and the Mexicans know it.

There are three solutions bandied about:

1. Do Nothing
2. Legalize the aliens.
3. Use the army and build a real wall along the 2000 mile border.

Option One is stupid. Option two is a slap in the face for legal immigrants.
Imagine it this way, you are waiting in line for a ride at disneyland. After a two hour wait you reach the front of the line only to have 300 people cut in front of you and demand to go on the ride. It strikes me a dreadfully unfair to those who tried to play by the rules, who spent time and money to come here legally.

Option three could be done for around 16 billion dollars. This is a real option. We would need to bring the troops home from around the world (a good thing IMO) and we could build a replacement for the panama canal as part of it.

But what if there was another option? One so crazy it just might work?

My suggestion:

We have the seven northern states of Mexico vote on whether to join the USA.

The consequences:

If all seven joined, the US would grow in land area by 10%. Those wishing to become Americans could move to these states and thus have a smoother transition. We could have a five to ten year transition period, were any work done in this area is tax free. This would probably drive skilled workers SOUTH from the US into these new states.

Currently 15 Billion dollars is transferred into Mexico from the US. Since Mexico has done nothing to stop the migration (indeed they encourage it) We make them an offer:

Allow your northern states the chance to vote on US statehood, or we cut off all wire transfers. The US could then pay Mexico for any state just like the Louisiana Purchase.

Imagine the explosion of jobs in such a huge tax free zone. We could even add a requirement that those here illegally MUST return to the new states and live there for 5-10 years at which time they would become citizens. Those who refuse to do so would be permanently banned from US soil (a mandatory 10 year jail sentence if caught in the US again).

These new states would see an explosion of jobs, the new citizens would have plenty of room to live, and a smooth transition into the American way of life.

Monday, April 03, 2006

Why Liberals and Conservatives just don't get it.

Conservatives love to bash Liberals for their idealism, and Liberals love to bash conservatives for their moralism. Did you know however that neither word means what it originally meant?

Classical Liberalism is based upon the idea that Liberty, both social and economic go hand in hand and are INNATE. It stems from the idea that society is there as a voluntary construct, which serves to enhance the quality of life of those within it.

Classical Conservatism is based upon the idea that radical change is usually a bad idea, that the values and customs of previous generations have worth. The idea that these things have survived the test of time and thus should not be tinkered with unless there is a great need to do so.

Most of the world's societies are based upon the idea of private property.
Yet Both modern liberalism and modern conservatism violate this fundamental ideal.

Liberals violate this ideal by seeking to make the world "fair". They seek to redistribute wealth using the power of the state. Conservatives violate this ideal by intruding upon the private moral decisions of the individual. It always amuses me when liberals talk about those evil gun owners, and how we should do away with all guns (except for the police and army of course).

If you are one of these liberals I have a question:

You equate guns with violence. Yet, guns can be used both in a responsible manner for self defense, and an irresponsible one (murder,theft). My question is this how does this differ from voting?

Voting is the ultimate use of force. It is a mandate which subjects the minority
to the will of the majority. It allows elected officials to wage war, punish dissent, and use your property (tax dollars) as he sees fit.

If you were to have a consistent position, you would either support a ban of universal suffrage AND gun ownership, or admit that if a man is competent to use force at the ballot box, then he is competent to own a gun.

Conservatives amuse me whenever they try to mandate morality, on issues such as abortion. It is a typical conservative position on issues such as welfare that a person should be held responsible for their decisions. This is in my opinion a correct assumption. However they sidestep this position in a major way when it comes to moral issues.

To wit, If you seek to use governmental power to ban abortion outright, you have taken over freedom of choice from an individual, and thus YOU are morally responsible for the outcome. This means YOU as an individual now have a responsibility for raising said child.

If you seek to punish drug use, You are then responsible for providing treatment for those addicted, who now cannot use said substance. If you seek to ban adoption by gay couples, then ethically YOU must step up and adopt an unwanted child yourself.

In short any time you limit the freedom of an individual to make such a moral judgment YOU MUST then take responsibility for YOUR actions.

I started this post with the fact that society is based upon the idea of private property. I will end it with the question that should be the foundation of any political viewpoint. That question is Who owns you?

Your body is physical property just like anything else. Thus there can be three answers:
1. You own yourself.
2. The state or society owns you.
3. No one owns you.

Answer Three makes no sense in a world where everything else is owned by someone/something. Thus the remaining choices are either you own your body, or society does. If your answer is number one, then you consider yourself a free person. If you answer is number two then you are a slave.

Any rational political world view should be based upon answer number one. It follows that ALL men are free, and that any action which limits that freedom is a step towards slavery.

Government in its purest sense is the balance between pure freedom and slavery. It is a necessary evil, and thus the smallest possible government which allows society to work is its optimum size. From this flows a clear set of political ideals. Whenever any law is proposed, or any official runs for election, you must be willing to analyze the law or person, see which freedoms are being curtailed and then trace what responsibilities you take on by voting for it/them.