I love it when Crackpots disagree!!
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
the bottom line is that Americans can't afford an open border
policy ... nor can we afford to be interventionists around the globe
> ...
On Dec 5, 4:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "After living for 21 years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was
> deported to Mexico in September, separated from the two daughters and
> son she has raised as a single mother since her ex-husband left them
> seven years ago." ( USA Today)
> This (above) was the lead for your "Story"... It is a lie, it is
> bullshit, it is irresponsible.
>
> When a parent is deported the children have every right to accompany
> him or her or them home... To be truly accurate in what transpires the
> headline would have to read:
>
> "Mother abandons children when deported, chooses to leave them behind"
>
> Since the premise is a lie, pure bullshit and irresponsible; so is the
> rest of the story.
>
> On Dec 5, 2:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Families at Risk from Immigration Authorities"After living for 21 years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was deported to Mexico in September, separated from the two daughters and son she has raised as a single mother since her ex-husband left them seven years ago." (USA Today)Family values.The Source of RightsDean Russell
> > November 1984 • Volume: 34 • Issue: 11 •Dr. Russell, recently retired from a full schedule of academic work, continues free-lance consulting, lecturing and writing from his home in Westchester County, New York.
> > This is one of a series of articles examining current interventions of the welfare state in the light of warnings from the French economist and statesman, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
> > The prevailing justification for governmental action in the United States today is this: The desires of the majority, as determined by universal and secret ballot, shall become the law of the land. And once the vote is in, everyone must obey, including those who think the law is immoral or economically destructive. Even if a person thinks the law violates individual freedom and the basic human rights of every person, he must still conform. Here are three examples of this situation currently in force.
> > 1. Some hospital administrators think abortions are immoral. Even so, abortions must still be accommodated in their hospitals. If the administrator refuses, the penalty for frustrating the legal right of a woman to have an abortion in a hospital open to the general public will be the loss of essential funds and certification for the hospital. This will result in the almost-certain de-raise of that particular hospital.
> > 2. One of the few economic principles accepted by economists of all persuasions is that tariffs cause higher prices, with a resulting decrease in goods and services. Even so, we economists (along with everyone else) must conform to that costly measure in practice, or suffer additional penalties as law-breakers.
> > 3. If the idea of human rights has any validity at all, surely the most fundamental one is the right of every peaceful human being to his own life. Yet the majority of American people have voted time and again to give to our government (the mechanism we use to enforce the collective will) the right to sacrifice that life on a battlefield of its own choosing.
> > Since the majority of people claim they have a right to use legal violence to compel dissenters to conform to those laws (and thousands more just like them), surely they should feel some obligation to justify their position with a rationale more acceptable than, "There are more of us than there are of you; we're bigger."
> > Further, when there's a prior law (constitutional or common or statute) that interferes with the current desires of the majority, then that law can be repealed in precisely the same manner the new law is passed, i.e., by majority vote in the customary way it's done in our particular form of democracy and representative government. While our unique Constitution (along with tradition) can delay the popular will, it can't stop it.
> > Ask anyoneteacher, preacher, editor, or public officialhow weshoulddetermine what is (and what is not) a proper function of government. The answer is always, "Why, by a democratic votetheAmericanway." If there's any other generally accepted way to determine collective actions, I'm unaware of it.
> > This doesn't mean, of course, that this philosophy of government causes the minority (the individual) to accept the decision of the majority as right or just. And certainly it doesn't cause us to accept it as final. In fact, this process of majority-rule automatically encourages the losers to regroup and strive again to become a majorityand then, in turn, to impose their desires on the former victors. While each group always claims "right is on our side," neither is in a sound position to make that claimat least, not as long as each group is striving to impose its will on the other group by force of law that's based on nothing more acceptable than sheer numbers.
> > This battle is never-ending. It's fought on the local level, the state level, the national level, and the international level. And it will continue to be fought on all levels everywhere until this vital issue of individual rights and group rights is based on a more acceptable and fundamental principle than the law of large numbers.Individual Rights
> > In truth, if it's to be effective, the issue must be settled between persons in the smallest possible unitjust two human beings deciding together what rights each has as an individual, what rights the two of them have collectively, and the source of those individual and collective rights. Until that hoped-for. accomplishment is in place, how-ever, we must continue to remain constantly alert for those persons (even the well-intentioned ones) who are trying to use the law to force you and me to conform totheirviewpoints. And please remember that those persons are to be found in Washington rather than in Moscow. While the Russians are truly a threat to our freedom, it's a threat of another kind.
> > In our heated discussions of this issue of "rights," all of us actually do pay lip-service to the idea of rights for the individual, i.e., we constantly recite the word. But almost never do we use the concept of individual rights to determine the validity of collective rights.
> > You'd think that would be the logical starting point. But when more than two people are involved, it seems we just call for a show of handswinner takes all. The losers then immediately prepare to continue the battle in one way or another untiltheyfinally become the majority.
> > And why not; for once you move away from the idea of individual rights to collective rights, what criterion is left except the law of large numbers? The only principle I can find there is that, mathematically, 51 per cent is larger than 49 per cent. There's not even one individual right to be found in that concept.
> > But since this law of large numbers (democracy in action) is the only rationale we've ever been taught for determining proper governmental actions in any area, it's not surprising we accept it without undue protest. We simply don't know any other way to do it. And in the areas of our most heated disagreements, e.g., taxing and spending and other matters affecting our incomes, most of us appear to vote automaticallyagainstpaying higher taxes and voteforgetting more subsidies of some kind.
> > As Frederic Bastiat said inThe Law:"When plunder is organized by law . . . all the plundered classes try somehow to enterby peaceful or revolutionary meansinto the making of laws."
> > If the American people (you and I and our neighbors) can legally get money merely by voting for it, most of us will do so. Even if some of us are hesitant to vote subsidies directly to ourselves, we feel real good when we do the same thing indirectly by voting for more government housing, education, and medical care for needy people. Whether we say so or not, we know full well we'd have to do it with our own money if the government didn't do it.
> > This process will continue with increasingly destructive consequences until one of two solutions occurs. First (and most likely), a would-be dictator will seize power by declaring an emergency and refusing to submit his right to rule to the uncertain outcome of another election that involves an opposition party. You need only glance casually around you to discover scores of nations where that's happened. Or second, we'll finally devise and accept a better rationale for collective (governmental) action that's based on a principle more fundamental and permanent than a mere show of hands.Life, Liberty, Property
> > I'm convinced that Frederic Bastiat devised that "better rationale" for group action in his writings in 1850. In his short book devoted to this issue,The Law,he offers a clear and simple method for determining the justification of any collective (governmental) action. He starts with the individual human being and never deviates from that universal base.
> > First he identifies the rights possessed by each and every person. He follows this with a logical explanation of where those individual rights come from. Finally, he demonstrates how the individual can logically and legitimately and morally retain and use his individual rights in harmony with his fellow humans in a viable social arrangement (government) designed to advance the well-being of everyone.
> > Bastiat begins by stating that every human being has three basic rights: (1) The right to his own life, (2) the right to be free to develop whatever faculties he's born with, and (3) the right to the use of his own property.
> > These three rights come from the creator of life itself. While Bastiat used the conventional word "God," the word "nature" serves his concept just as well. The essential point he was making is that these rights inhere in each individual at birth and thus they "precede all human legislation and are superior to it."
> > Not surprisingly, Bastiat was familiar with our own Declaration of Independence, including the first draft of that
>
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment