Thursday, December 26, 2013

Quote of the day

This will not play out well:
Those high-paying jobs requiring average IQs are now gone. What’s left for these people? Jobs paying minimum-wage or slightly above. Either that, or welfare. Or crime (the average IQ of those in prison is 93).

The United States is stratifying itself by IQ. We’re going to end up without much of a blue-collar middle-class since their jobs are being outsourced. We’re going to end up with a poorly-paid lower-class partly supported by marginal welfare payments and a highly-paid upper class with higher IQs, who are partly supporting the lower classes through transfer payments. While they hide in their gated, armed communities.


One of the things that the financial “elites” do is what to flood the country with low-IQ illegal immigrants. Why? To drive down wages, which means more money for the elites. The fact that many “libertarians” are too blind and ignorant to realize that by supporting open borders they are cutting their own throats – and that of the nation – would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic.
Yup. This will not play out well.


Dave H said...

You're just full of good news today, BP.

Old NFO said...

I really didn't 'need' to see that this morning, but you are correct... sigh

Jester said...

Perhaps my branch of libertarians that I frequently speak to are a different breed but none of us want open borders. There is some merit to making the immigration process as a whole a bit less cumbersome and streamlined but no one I know other than the big Republicans and all the Democrats are advocating open borders or outsourcing of jobs.

Geodkyt said...

Jester -- the Libertarian Party official platform supports open borders. As do many (but hardly all) of the "small-L" libertarians I have known.

First, let me point out that I very much approve of the offiical LP platform and the "majority concensus" views of mainstream "small-L" libertarians in terms of solely domestic policies. I might quibble on the details and feel that some economic protections on the margins, and some major infrastructure issues are well within the Constitution and the mandate of proper government to "Protect the people from force and fraud, and to do those utterly necessary things that are best done collectively." (Yes, I support public highways, unlike many minarchists. I support local police and fire departments. I support a welfare net to cath those who are falling between the cracks -- but not a hammock for the lazy. Surprisingly enough there are many who describe themselves as "libertarian" who think all of these functions should be "free market". . . these people are better described as "anarchists". . . ;-) ) (Bold emphasis mine, only relevent sections quoted.)

Item 2.7 -- We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment.

Item 3.4 -- Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Ron Paul talks about enforcing the law against illegal immigrants, and said he opposes amnesty "because it's the law" (yet opposes forced deportation "because it's impractical") believes we should encourage low wage immigrant workers via a guest worker program.

"Mainstream" libertarianism is all about open borders and no US troops deployed abroad except in DIRECT response to a direct attack on US territory.

Now, I agree that we should make it easier for good, productive, freedom-loving people to immigrate -- for example, the hoops an English speaking, college educated, highly motivated, Canadian who grew up literally minutes across the US border faces in trying to legally immigrate and become a permanent resident and then citizen are inexcuseable. I am all for avoiding unnecessary overseas combat -- where there is no credible US interest to be served, or the likelyhood of any US advantage to be gained out of involvement. However, that isn't the same as the "mainstream" libertarian view or the Libertarian Party.

Frankly, the Libertarian Party (and most mainstream libertarians) positions on national defence (including immigration control) from the national borders on out scare the Hell out of me, and ensure I will NOT vote for anyone who claims to be a libertarian (small "L" or large "L") who doesn't publicly repudiate those positions for ANY federal office. Because it isn't 1812 or 1898 anymore and credible threats need to be stopped abroad before they get here, which requires either hegemony or alliances (and I prefer voluntary alliances over unilateral hegemony).

Geodkyt said...

It is a generally good article. Unfortuantely for the strength of the argument, UncaBob apparantly either hasn't actually read the Constitution, or suffers from a severe lack of reading comprehension.

For example:

"The Constitution not only demands that only gold and silver be money, it also forbids "Bill of Credit," i.e. paper money. Any economist who does not understand this is not an economist. "

US Constitution, Article I, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

That's a prohibition on the states, not the federal government, and it is in the same section that bars them from conducting foreign affairs, coin money, or other things that are expressly reserved to the national government.

Jester said...


I was referencing my opinion here and the general consensus of those I associate with, the "official" party platform not withstanding. I agree with you on most of your points though. I suspect there are many different spheres of thought in the Libertarian party just like there is in the Democrat and Republican parties. Though I suppose it is interesting to see if its a local train of thought or other wise.

Bob Wallace said...

I am well aware of that quote in the Constitution. Bills of Credit (paper money) is forbidden and only gold and silver are to be money. And without the Federal Reserve Bank (which is not in the Constitution and therefore illegal) the feds couldn't do anything except follow the Constitution.

Get your facts straight next time.

Goober said...

Open borders are a bad thing.

That's not to say that we shouldn't let people in who want to do work and live by our rules while they're here.

I know its a tired old saw, but until i see white folks out picking apples in the orchards round these parts, I'm going to continue saying that we are probably going to have to let some mexicans in to do the work we won't do ourselves.

John Balog said...

Geodkyt: so following your logic here, only the states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws? Issuing bills of attainder? Granting titles of nobility? Interesting...

Goober: false dichotomy is false. The Mexicans do it because they will accept slave wages, steal ID's, and not cause a fuss if they get maimed or killed. If we got rid of that labor source then the labor cost for fruits and veggies would rise. Since that's a fairly nominal part of the overall cost of those times then the cost rise would be fairly marginal as well.

John Balog said...

And that ignores the hidden costs passed on to society as a whole of the uninsured and accident prone illegal drivers, personal and property crime deriving from illegals, and the tax they put on the hospitals and legal system.