It's a simple solution for unserious people who don't care about actually addressing the issues that drive illegal immigration.
Open up the borders we need more immigrants to keep our economy pumping we have a net negative birth rate. DD
I agree. Get rid of government funded handouts and open the borders to people and trade. Allow for a free market for goods and labor.
And form entire generations of children being developed with lack of nutrition, healthcare services etc disproportionately increasing their odds of being unstable mentally ill adults who can't be productive to society.
It's so odd how people like you so easily buy into concepts of investing to create or "grow something" but can't apply that concept to humans in a society.
Investing is voluntary. I have no issue with people giving as much as they want to whomever they want to invest in human development. Just like I don't want my money taken from me and "invested" in Tesla or Apple, I don't want it taken and "invested" in Tommy or Amanda. You are free to set up a soup kitchen or free academy or just hand out cash at the border if you like. That should be your choice. What I do with my money should be my choice.
You can chose also to reap the benefits of a society around you that has a larger percentage of mentally healthy humans around you or you can get out. I think we have two separate goals. Your goal is to make sure you maximize your own bubble of wealth and quality without understanding outside constraints while I care about humanity continuing forward even past my existence. One of the worst aspects of libertarianism is a lack of self awareness of how their lifestyles are simply not possible without the social and public infrastructure around them. It's why so many of you types were so offended when Obama said "you didn't build that by yourself".
One of the worst aspects of statism is the lack of awareness that people can contribute to society without being forced to do so. You have no idea what my goals are or what I do with that money I am allowed to keep. You are also misquoting Obama. He said, "You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
It's amazing how libertarians have such conflicting ideas in their ideology. Somehow they believe in society and economics should be a survival of the fittest game and then magically believe the ones who win the game are going to be naturally empathetic those that lose instead of just throwing around the barr minimum to make sure they don't violently revolt. It's amazing how you can't comprehend how the survivors in that type of economic game want to naturally from basic nature coalesce power to the point where all the **** you hate about government such as regulatory capture is from the nature of an ideology you bootlick. Yes the winners coalesce power and when they do they have the power to influence state governments. Why? Because the winners will scratch, crawl, murder etc to make sure the methods that got them disproportionate influence in society are kept. Also these entities by their very nature will not care about the consequences to society 20 or 50 years down the line. It's near psychopathic especially if you have children.
So your response to my argument that the state should have less power is that it would be bad if the state had more power?
This isn't a digital environment where we live in discrete binary decisions of 1s and 0s. It's a continuous world and therefore the solution of "little government" vs "big government" is a child level discourse on the matter. My claim is that the aspects of government that made Reagan say "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." that conservatives hold as basically religious scripture at this point are all aspects created by unmitigated capitalist growth. When the winners in a free market society win, they make the rules to make sure they keep on winning.
You don't have to worry. A lot of business owners who want to maximize return on investment will find jobs for them.
You claim then is nonsense. The aspects of the government that make it bad have been here since FDR and continue to grow, moreso under Democrats than Republicans, but grow under both parties nonetheless. It has been the winners of a government regulated society that have been in control for a hundred years, and of course they will continue to push policies that further empower the government. When was the last time the power held by the Federal government decreased? Ever? The beauty of a small, weak government is that it doesn't matter who controls it (because it is small and weak and can't do much damage). A massively powerful federal government that can take half your money and wiretap your phone and decide what medication you can or must take raises the stakes of who is in control.
Can’t some of the $800 billion we spend on defense a year be used to deploy some army or national guard resources to help secure the border in/around El Paso, provide some humanitarian relief and some administrative resources? Or does it all just go to fraud, waste, bloated budgets, “research” and other various machinations to rip off the tax payer?
While typing this statement on a system that uses the tcp/ip packet switching protocol that was developed by tax payer funds. There is plenty of govt waste. But I do find it funny what you consider waste.
