| | 1. Regarding the parasite comment, perhaps I should have said it seems that you view etc. Nonetheless, in Post 3, you said:
Even in a totally free country, the people that are citizens are owners in common of aspects of the culture and the minimal common infrastructure. Every person that comes into the country benefits and partakes of that. They may be a plus economically but they may be a drag on the culture. It may take them many, many years to speak the language to make contributions other than what is contracted as work for pay.
Emphasis added. You expressed a worry that immigrants would be "a drag on the culture." That sounds like the textbook definition of a parasite. In hindsight, I should have said, "It seems as if you view some people as parasites."
2. I did not lump you with slaveholders. I simply did not do that. It never happened. It seems as if you are pretty heated, so you must not have understood the analogy. In Post 9, you said:
In my example those people lost a major part of what they would consider their life. But this is not an argument. If it was then slaveholders would have been able to use this excuse to defend slavery. Notice that nowhere, absolutely nowhere, did I compare you to a slaveholder. I'm baffled as to how you reached that conclusion.
3. You take exception when I say that this country does not belong to you. I did not mean to imply that you that it was yours and yours alone, but you did imply that you, and every other American owns this country. You said in Post 9:
but this country doesn't belong to the would-be immigrant. Well, obviously you are implying that the country belongs to someone, just not the illegal immigrant. Perhaps if I had said, "This country does not belong to you and everyone else," then you wouldn't have taken it so personally.
4. You also say that I:
imply that I would interfere with offering a job to someone or selling them goods or renting them a room. Steve, you implied it yourself. In your very first post you said:I'm not sure we don't have a right to tell people no, you can't live here as a citizen until you meet some minimal standards we have created. And we are going to limit the number of people per year.
Hypothetical: I make an agreement with an immigrant to perform a certain service at an agreed upon wage.
You've already endorsed preventing people from entering this country, so by that standard it would be OK to prevent me from hiring this person, although you might do it unintentionally (i.e, you might not prevent that person from entering because we have an agreement, but the end result would be the same). And even if no agreement is already in place, by preventing their entry, you are depriving me of the opportunity to strike an agreement.
I'm anxious to read your response. And if I'm wrong, I will publicly apologize. But as long as we're picking bones here...
I'm not sure who your intellectual property rights comment is directed towards. I have not discussed I.P. on this thread, or on any thread, on this site or any other. I admittedly do not know much about I.P., I do not have an interest in it right now, and I don't think it's relevant to this thread. It is odd that you accuse me of "nasty lies, innuendo, and smears," and in the very next breath attribute a position to me...
...it didn't occur to me that you would say anything that is not made of material is disallowed from being property.
...that I never said. Not once. Ever. I can see how intellectual property rights, such as a copyright to a novel, could exist and be excercised (But is it right? I don't know). But how in the world do you excercise your property rights to something like "the moral tenor of [a countries people]", or "patriotic vigor."
Then you accuse me doing an "absurd twisting of someone else's words" in order to claim that you believe the government should be in charge of our moral tenor. Given that I did not use quotation marks, I can see how you might think that, but it was not my intention. Rather I meant to convey that by following the reasoning you were using to its logical ends, one would arrive at that conclusion. For example, you say that:
1. There is both a common infrastructure, and a culture, that is owned collectively by the citizens of a country.
Generations have gone by with their contributions accumulating to our culture and the amassed common infrastructure (laws, courts, roads, private wealth passed on, etc.) and to our economy. Even in a totally free country, the people that are citizens are owners in common of aspects of the culture and the minimal common infrastructure. ~Post 3 2. One element of this common infrastructure/culture is the moral tenor of its people.
This commons I am referring to is the accumulated value of a civilization as such. It is the laws, it is those accepted practices that have value, the moral tenor of its people, it is the patriotic vigor to defend the nation if needed, it is the traditions that unify, it is like what a business lists on its books as "good will". ~Post 9
3. It is legitimate for the government to prevent immigration, in order to protect the common infrastructure/culture, (hereafter referred to simply as "the commons".)
Even in a totally free country, the people that are citizens are owners in common of aspects of the culture and the minimal common infrastructure. Every person that comes into the country benefits and partakes of that. They may be a plus economically but they may be a drag on the culture. It may take them many, many years to speak the language to make contributions other than what is contracted as work for pay. If the rate of immigration is too high, the resulting chaos becomes part of everyones life.
I'm not sure we don't have a right to tell people no, you can't live here as a citizen until you meet some minimal standards we have created. And we are going to limit the number of people per year. ~Post 3
4. Following this logic: If it is a legitimate function of government to do certain things in order to protect the commons, and the moral tenor of a country is part of the commons, then it is legitimate for the government to take certain actions to control the moral tenor of the country.
5. It is legitimate for the government to take action to protect the commons (see #3).
6. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to take certain actions to control the moral tenor of the country.
By all means Steve, if you see an error in my reasoning, please enlighten me. But it is completely dishonest to accuse me of twisting your words.
|
|
