Freedomain Radio

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

So for you RP's desire to forcefully deport over 10 million of people does not strike you as in any way parallel?

parallel to shooting, gassing, experimenting on, torturing and slaughtering six million Jews because they are Jews, you mean?

not parallel enough to justify the association no. does it strike you that way? if so, why?

Force, is force, is force, is force.

It matters not that the consequence of it's use is a bruised child whose candy has been taken from him, or six million dead jewish people, or ten million immigration refugees - it is still force, and it is still wrong. 

hippy:

Protectionism is never self defense, and the protectionist plaintiff is never a victim.

I'd just like to say: thankyou for describing the immigration debacle in the same way I do. That is, anti-immigration sentiment IS protectionist sentiment, and all of the measures proposed in its name constitute forms of protectionism. Opposition to immigration (and the legislation that comes with it) should always be considered one of the primary facets of protectionism. Even Mises pointed this out in a number of his works.

I also have this idea in my head that trade unions are largely behind this. It makes perfect sense.

Brainpolice:

hippy:

Protectionism is never self defense, and the protectionist plaintiff is never a victim.

I'd just like to say: thankyou for describing the immigration debacle in the same way I do. That is, anti-immigration sentiment IS protectionist sentiment, and all of the measures proposed in its name constitute forms of protectionism. Opposition to immigration (and the legislation that comes with it) should always be considered one of the primary facets of protectionism. Even Mises pointed this out in a number of his works.

I also have this idea in my head that trade unions are largely behind this. It makes perfect sense.

that is so cynical! the trade unions just dont want to see those poor Mexicans being exploited!

it was funny, in a tv show in my country a union guy actually made this argument and even the very left wing show host rolled his eyes...

Greg Gauthier:

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

So for you RP's desire to forcefully deport over 10 million of people does not strike you as in any way parallel?

parallel to shooting, gassing, experimenting on, torturing and slaughtering six million Jews because they are Jews, you mean?

not parallel enough to justify the association no. does it strike you that way? if so, why?

Force, is force, is force, is force.

It matters not that the consequence of it's use is a bruised child whose candy has been taken from him, or six million dead jewish people, or ten million immigration refugees - it is still force, and it is still wrong. 

 

yes Greg, that time that I took rent subsidies made it sensible to compare me to Stalin. the argument technique that you just used is called winning (or I dub it anyway) by definitions... we had a similar sort of issue on Skype before, regarding socialism, remember? there you conceded, why then do you use the same basic argument here?

Taking rent subsidies is not categorically identical, so your objection fails.

If you contributed to the conditions that made it necessary for good people to seek rent subsidies, or suffer the consequence of homelessness, then yes: you are equivalent to killing six million jews.

Greg Gauthier:

Taking rent subsidies is not categorically identical, so your objection fails.

If you contributed to the conditions that made it necessary for good people to seek rent subsidies, or suffer the consequence of homelessness, then yes: you are equivalent to killing six million jews.

 

 

well, if you stand by that statement then I'll gladly make that concession! (otherwise I wouldnt though)

it's very rare for somebody to pull a reductio ad absurdum on his own argument

the trade unions just dont want to see those poor Mexicans being exploited!

That is indeed the arguement that left-wing people in favor of restricting immigration have put foreward: we must illegalize these jobs because the immigrants are being exploited (my first thought is that the immigrants want those jobs, so they are essentially going against the will of the immigrants themselves; you cannot claim to be "helping" someone by denying them what they want; in this case, jobs). They try to justify anti-immigration legislation (protectionism, and yes, I will continue to call it protectionism) by argueing on the basis of class warfare. Because, surely,  being unemployed is going to put them in a better economic situation than being paid below the minimum wage? Not!

Ah, the logic of it is so wonderful! Let's help people by illegalizing their employment contracts!

because the principle is what matters.

Either we believe in logic and reason or we don't.  

If force is wrong, then force is wrong. period.

Brainpolice:

the trade unions just dont want to see those poor Mexicans being exploited!

That is indeed the arguement that left-wing people in favor of restricting immigration have put foreward: we must illegalize these jobs because the immigrants are being exploited (my first thought is that the immigrants want those jobs, so they are essentially going against the will of the immigrants themselves; you cannot claim to be "helping" someone by denying them what they want; in this case, jobs). They try to justify anti-immigration legislation (protectionism, and yes, I will continue to call it protectionism) by argueing on the basis of class warfare. Because, surely,  being unemployed is going to put them in a better economic situation than being paid below the minimum wage? Not!

Ah, the logic of it is so wonderful! Let's help people by illegalizing their employment contracts!

ah, dont you understand? These Mexicans dont know what they really want! We do!

Rodzilla:

a)  mobilize an enormous armed force across the entire country, to root out the immigrants, brutally subdue them, and ship them to the countries from which they fled (it's not just Mexico, Mr. Paul), or;

b)  notify all government welfare agencies that recipients of welfare must show proof of citizenship before receiving said welfare.

c) End welfare and give us our stolen money back. 

Nathan McKaskle:

Rodzilla:

a)  mobilize an enormous armed force across the entire country, to root out the immigrants, brutally subdue them, and ship them to the countries from which they fled (it's not just Mexico, Mr. Paul), or;

b)  notify all government welfare agencies that recipients of welfare must show proof of citizenship before receiving said welfare.

c) End welfare and give us our stolen money back. 

Rodzilla!:

Nathan McKaskle:

Rodzilla:

a)  mobilize an enormous armed force across the entire country, to root out the immigrants, brutally subdue them, and ship them to the countries from which they fled (it's not just Mexico, Mr. Paul), or;

b)  notify all government welfare agencies that recipients of welfare must show proof of citizenship before receiving said welfare.

c) End welfare and give us our stolen money back. 

Yeah, but I said, "put yourself in the shoes of the President."  I was trying to make it believable. 

I would do a lot more than that if I were in the shoes of the president, not only would I recall all the troops but I'd end welfare, income tax, the drug war and then resign on the same day.  Of course the president can't do that which is why voting for Ron Paul is pointless.
 

Nathan McKaskle:

I would do a lot more than that if I were in the shoes of the president, not only would I recall all the troops but I'd end welfare, income tax, the drug war and then resign on the same day.  Of course the president can't do that which is why voting for Ron Paul is pointless. 

Not quite correct.  Resigning is fully within his power.  Let's encourage all politicians to do the one thing that is within their power.