From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 17:50:50 MDT
Randy writes
> I hope that others are coming around to seeing our nation
> as a jointly owned property around an unwritten contract
> exists. The parties to this contract are the citizens of
> this nation. Non citizens are NOT parties to this
> particular contract.
I have no problem with that, since it's in alignment with
my instincts, and I can explain my instincts as evolutionarily
derived and foster the relative success of my group, and
(for the cultural component thereof) ditto. In other words,
groups which have people in them like us---everything else
being equal---survive better.
> In part, the contract holds that the citizens must compete
> with each other for whatever benefits are to be had from
> citizenship. Non citizens may not compete for the benefits
> of citizenship, unless they "buy in" in a sufficient amount.
Or unless it is deemed safe from a cultural point of view
to allow them to immigrate.
> If our hired men (our politicians) subvert this contract, or
> allow others to subvert it, thereby defrauding/robbing/embezzling
> the citizens, they should face stiff penalties.
Absolutely. Your and my only differences appear to be about
the actual mechanisms involved, and what the results will be
of allowing the free market to work. On the plus side, it's
a rule with very few exceptions that everyone is better off
when total freedom (up to the usual limits) exists, and that
definitely includes economic freedom.
But the "economic freedom" to allow a lot of third-world
types into your country (e.g., the present Moslem takeover
of Europe) should not include destroying the culture that
built your country. On the other hand, imposing trade
barriers just because Japanese, say, can build something
cheaper is a loser in the long run. You keep up that kind
of thinking, and the rest of the world eventually leaves
you in the dust.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 17:59:50 MDT