Billionaires: It's good to import foreign workers

Aug 21, 2014 23:51:40 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, I should just say that I agree entirely with your position that all who are capable of doing so should provide for themselves; and that if that is insufficient, we should be compassionate enough to provide assistance. Where I would doubtless disagree, however, is as regarding the left's view--and, I believe, your own virw--that society in general should be compelled to provide that assistance (e.g. through the welfare state), as opposed to individuals doing so voluntarily.

I do not, however, agree that all of our rights derive from natural law (which undergirds the entire concept of natural rights).  Certainly, that is one source of our rights.  Another is the social contract (a.k.a. the social compact), which was the basis for the views of John Locke (whom you often cite). 

Your observation that if only America would "eliminate the economic protectionism then there isn't a line [for citizenship] at all" is a (rather obvious) end run around my central point, viz.:  Every country--including America--has a right to its complete, undiluted sovereignty; and to declare that a country should have no right to control its own borders is to seriously erode that right of national sovereignty.

You have alluded to "the non-visible parts [of the unborn child] such as heart, brain, and other internal organs" in your effort to define who is (or is not) truly human.  But that public-service announcement, noting that abortion "stops a beating heart," is not just empty rhetoric.  It is true.  At least, for all but the very earlist stages of pregnancy.

As to your reasoning as concerning capital punishment, I will have to say that your view is not entirely frivolous. It is certainly true that a prisoner poses (currently) no "imminent threat" to society. But a violent offender may, indeed, pose a serious threat to his guards and/or fellow inmates. And if he were ever to escape, he could pose a threat to the broader society.  Moreover, his execution could very possibly save a multitude of other lives; and this begs the (quite serious) moral question:  Is the life of a specific individual inherently more valuable than the life of an unspecified individual?  This very same dilemma often surfaces in hostage situations:  Should the US, for instance, have paid ISIS the 100 million euros (132 million dollars) in exchange for James Foley, a few months ago, when the deal was offered--even though that money could easily have been used in ways that would have facilitated the capture and murder of others?  (For the record, I think the Obama administration acted wisely in this regard, by refusing the ransom that might have led to many more future deaths; and I say this, despite the fact that I am not ordinarily accused of being a cheerleader for the Obama administration.)      

When addressing the difference between the welfare of the child and the welfare of an adult the fundamental problems becomes obvious. When it comes to the child we have the parent(s) or foster/adoptive parents that volunteer to be lawful guadians. How would we address adults in establishing the legal guardianship where a person(s) is legally required to provide for their welfare like we do with children?   

Obviously that can't pragmatically be done so  instead of individual volunteer responsibility we've created a social responsibility. Logically this needed assistance is provided for by those that can afford to help others as opposed to those that are marginal when it comes to providing for themselves. That's why my federal tax proposal is so good as it only imposes an income tax on the top 50% of income earners. These are the people that can afford to pay (from a little to a lot) to ensure that no one goes hungry, no one lives on the streets, and that the basic necessities are provided for.

Of course I always return to the basic general principle that if a person's labor is adequately compensated for then they don't require welfare assistance. 

First of all I don't compare America to other countries as no other country is based upon the same political ideology. For example the UK grants statutory rights to the people while we recognize the inalienable rights of the person that are not statutory. To my knowledge the 9th Amendment makes the United States unique among all nations.  

The sovereignty of a nation is based upon the individual sovereignty of the people (citizens and non-citizens combined) that comprise the nation. What I believe concerns you is actually the potential for immigrants to dilute or destroy our national identity as they bring other political and social ideologies with them when they immigrate. That is a valid concern but it actually reveals an deeper underlying problem. We don't teach Americans what our national ideology is very well and it is that ideology that establishes our national identity.

Our school systems teach American history but don't teach American ideology very well. I have often recommended that an entire semester in high school should be dedicated to just teaching the following single sentence and it's implications related to our nation identity:

An Inalienable (natura) Right is that which in inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not violate the Rights of another Person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person.    

If we ensured that every American citizen (natural born and naturalized) knew and understood that one sentence and it's social and political implications then we would have no problem with our national identity.  

Returning to "recognizably human" we can already see a difference of opinion between us so your claim that it is not a matter of opinion is therefore false. It is most certainly a matter of opinion and that is something we both need to address from a pragmatic standpoint. We already have a defined means for addressing this under the US Constitution. Because the difference of opinion hinges upon establishment of Personhood that grants Constitutional protections the criteria estbablish is that 3/4ths of the state legislatures must agree to the enumerated Constitutional protection. Only a Constitutional amendment resolves the issue.  

Our prison systems require that the guards and prison facilities prevent an inmate from harming other inmates or the guards as well as ensuring that inmates don't escape. Obviously the level of protection related to both is related to the danger the inmate represents but when it comes to the most heinous of individual the "security" must be to the maximum extent necessary. Your proposition is that we should accept failure while my position is that we should not allow failure at all. It is not impossible to prevent any individual that is incarcerated from commiting future harm to others and prevent them from escaping. Of course if we didn't incarcerate individuals for victimless crimes where they've harmed no one we would be better able to ensure that inmates that have harmed others are incapable of doing so while incarcerated and that they don't excape.  

Aug 23, 2014 0:25:15 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) In the clause, "nstead of individual volunteer responsibility we've created a social responsibility," it is unclear just what the (implied) antecedent of the pronoun, "we," might be.  I certainly never helped to establish any such collective responsibility.  In fact, the entire collectivist thinking that undergirds any such philosophy probably belongs to the New Deal and Great Society eras--for which I have no special affection, to say the least. 

(2) Although you are not entirely incorrect in your observation that I am a bit concerned about "the potential for immigrants to dilute or destroy our national identity as they bring other political and social ideologies with them," that was not at all the point of my argument. (In fact, I am actually far more worried about the native-born, low-information voter, as such people seem to be on the ascendancy.  How else to explain the election--and then the re-election--of Barack Obama to the presidency?) 

Oh, I do rather like your idea about devoting "an entire [high-school] semester" to "our national identity."

(3) I really would not place too much emphasis upon "labor," as if it were the chief component in creating--well, just about anything.  The risk of startup capital, knowledge, expertise, and many other things are at least equally important--or even more so.     

(4) How might we have "a difference of opinion" as to what is "recognizably human"?  And, in any case, how might an established definition of what is (or is not) recognizably human be any more arbitrary than Roe's decision to define a worthwhile human life as anything under 26 weeks of age? 

(5) The impulse to tax "those that can afford to pay," while exempting others, is noble enough--well, except whenever politicians get a hold of the concept, and decide that their own client groups should be aided, to the detriment of those who are generally more inclined to vote for The Other Guy--but it is also a bit too simplistic for my taste.  For one thing, the cost of living varies wildly between, say, San Francisco and Birmingham.  Or between New York and Nashville.  Moreover, differences in debt and other monthly expenses can make for an enormous difference.  For instance, my own annual income--about $44-45k before taxes--is really pretty modest, even by local standards.  But I have no debt, and only limited expenses; so I typically have at least $1,500 a month after taxes more income than outgo.  On the other hand, someone with a far more impressive income--say, $500,000 per year--may very well be up to this eyeballs in debt, and hard pressed to barely stay afloat. 

(6) I do not believe that our national sovereignty is derivitave; but that it stands alone, entirely irrespective of individual sovereignty.  And I do not believe that any of this applies to "non-citizens" (which, in any case, is a rather nebulous term, encompassing both legal residents and illegal aliens).          

(1) I assume that we both believe in the US Constitution and support the Social Contract upon which it was based (i.e. the two sentences from the Declaration of Independence that I often cite). Our laws are, or at least should be, based upon that document (the Constitution) and the Social Contract (the 2 sentences from the DOI) and we "consent" to that. So even if you or I disagree with a law so long as it meets the criteria of the Constitution in fulfilling the Social Contract we have, by default, provided our consent. So "we" through our government have provided our consent to the laws, based upon our common morality, that ensure the welfare of both a child and an adult in the United States. In fact to care about the child and not the adult would reflect age discrimination in our caring about others in society and both of us (I assume) oppose discrimination.

(2) The "the native-born, low-information voter" is actually the real problem. Few Americans are "high-information voters" and that is very problematic. If native-born Americans were more informed then the influx of foreigners would not be an issue at all as we would educate them and they would assume our national character and ideology. What we find is the immigrant comes to American and falsely believes that Americans believe many of the same things they do because many "native-born" Americans express those identical beliefs even though they're inconsistant with the American ideology and character.

For example how many Americans claim that "natural born citizenship" can exist based upon the citizenship of the parents? Those that do are ignorant when it comes to the "natural Right of Citizenship" that cannot be dependent upon another person (i.e. parent(s)). When the authors of the Constitution refered to "natural born citizen" they referred to the inalienable Right of Citizenship established by Jus Soli. This was actually clarified in the Supreme Court Decision of the US v Kim Wong Ark that concluded that natural born citizenship had always based upon being born on the soil of the Untied States (Jus Soli) and was unrelated to the citizenship of the parents (Jus Sanguinis). Individuals like John McCain and Ted Cruz are US citizens based upon our naturalization laws and are not natural born citizens of the US. They are statutory citizens.  

(3) Not matter how much you think about something or how much money is involved without human labor nothing is ever produced and no service is provided. Wealth is literally only created by the labor of the person. As I've noted though there is a problem now that will get worse in the future as AI and technology created by human labor replaces human labor in the present and future. When the computer and the robot create the computer and the robot it was still the product of human labor but the human no longer receives the compensation for the labor.  

(4) Roe v Wade was not arbitrary by any standard. It addressed the issue of the "person" and not when life begins. The US Constitution is not concerned with when life begins but it is concerned with the "person" as the "person" has rights that are protected. It was completely accurate when it established that "personhood" had always originated at birth throughout recorded history. That was not an arbitrary decision and there was no dispute between the opposing sides of the issue on it. The Supreme Court was also not arbitrary in it's determination that at natural viability that the only difference between a (viable) fetus and a child was a few millimeters of human tissue. The fetus was not a "person" because it was still in the womb but it could survive outside of the womb as a person. The fetus at viability became a potential person and that was not an arbitrary decision but instead was a decision based upon facts. The only "arbitrary" part of the Roe v Wade decision was to extend limited Constitutional protections to a fetus that is a "non-person" because of the pragmatic argument that it could exist outside of the womb as a person and that really wasn't very arbitrary. Had it not been for this pragmatic, albeit limited, "arbitrary" determination allaws that restricted nor prohibited abortion woud have been struck down based upon the Rights of the the Woman that is unquestionably a person. Roe v Wade was actually very favorable for anti-abortionists because the Court could very well have struck down all abortion laws as the "woman" was the only "Person" with Constitutionally protected rights. Roe v Wade was a "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution that favored the anti-abortionists as opposed to imposing a strict interpretation based upon the definition of person which was not disputed.

The issue is not when human life begins but instead when "personhood" is established and there are different opinions on when that occurs.

(5) Yes, people can nefariously change the tax codes and corrupt them which is exactly what we have today. It is hard for me to even imagine a more corrupt tax code than what we have today. I laid out a proposal that is as clean as I could make it in attempting to remove the nefarious corruption. If, by some miracle, we could get my tax proposal implemented the challenge would be to prevent the politicans from neferiously corrupting it in the future.  

(6) Governments have power and authority but they have no Rights. Sovereignty is a "Right" and can only exists with the person. National sovereignty is based upon the cummulative Rights of Sovereignty of the People living within the national boundries of the nation.

You have previously implied that you support and believe in the US Constitution and the Constitution itself establishes that we're a nation of the "People" (i.e. "We the People") and the people include both citizens and non-citizens. Citizens and non-citizens (immigrants) are merely sub-groups of the People.

Aug 23, 2014 19:48:29 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) The belief that we should require parents or guardians to care properly for infants, and the corresponding belief that government should have no right to confiscate individuals' money, in order to redistribute it to others, is hardly a matter of "age discrimination."  The voluntary redistribution of funds--i.e. charity--is perfectly fine, as far as I am concerned.

(2) As for your opinion that John McCain and Ted Cruz "are not natural born citizens of the US," here is a bit from Wikipedia on the subject:

The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to foreign parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.

The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen.

(3) "Wealth" cannot be "created" by labor alone.  An over-emphasis upon labor, as the creator of wealth, is the hallmark of Marxist economists--who are considerably to the left of even Keynesians.  Primitive countries often are labor-intensive--and yet productivity is relatively low.  Capital investments in modern machinery, high-end skill, knowledge, and a plethora of other factors (including startup capital) are also exceedingly important. 

(4) Your assertion that "'personhood' had always originated at birth throughout recorded history" seems strangely at odds with your further observation that "there are different opinions on when [personhood] occurs."

(5) As you know, I believe that, on balance, your tax proposal is pretty good. At least, it would work for me.

(6) I rather doubt that the preamble to the US Constitution means to refer to illegals by the term, "We the people." 

And I cannot agree with your view that nations per se have no right to sovereignty--that only individuals do.  As the Treaty of Westphalia established in 1648 (some 300 years before I was even born), nations do, indeed, have the right to territorial integrity.  As Wikipedia puts it, "In the Westphalian system, the national interests and goals of states (and later nation-states) were widely assumed to go beyond those of any citizen or any ruler. States became the primary institutional agents in an interstate system of relations."    
  

1. We ensure that the welfare of both child and adult is provided for with both voluntary private and public assistance. If, for example, the mother of the child chooses to leave it at the hospital and not become the voluntary guardian of the child it becomes a ward of the state and it's welfare is provided for with tax dollars.

2. Wikipedia reflects the beliefs of low-informed voters when it cites a Congressional report. The history of uncontitutional laws that Congress has passed is indicative of how uninformed Congress is when it comes to the US Constitution.

There is, of course, a simple test. Title 8 of US code contains the naturalization laws that Congress has passed based it's authority under Article I Section 8's authority to create uniform laws of naturalization. If Title 8 did not exist then neither John McCain or Ted Cruz would be US citizens. The Congress can only provide for "naturalization" and cannot grant or infringed upon "natural born citizenship" nor does the citizenship of the parent establishe the citizenship of the child. The Surpeme Court in it's decision in US v Kim Wong Ark established that natural born citizenship was an inalienable (natural) right of the person based upon Jus Soli (The Right of Soil) and was not based upon Jus Sanguinis (The Right of Blood).

Our Congress really is reflective of low-informed voters which is the problem.

3. Of course wealth can be created by labor alone. If I use wood I gather from the forest and create a piece of furniture I've created wealth. Our entire economy is based upon "taking from nature and producing goods through labor" and all other aspects of the ecomony are merely supportive of that.

4. There are some that propose the the historical establishment of personhood at birth should be changed which can be done. Historical precedent isn't always right. There is no dispute related to the historical precendent that personhood begins at birth but instead the difference of opinion is about whether we should change that precedent for the future.

I'm actually a supporter of changing the precedent of "personhood" to include the preborn at natural viability by a Constitutional Amendment (the only way it can be changed for the US) but also know it wouldn't change our current protections established by Roe v Wade that were provided for the preborn based upon "potential" personhood.  

5. Yes I know you generally support my tax proposal and I'd bet that you also agree that the politicians would be trying to  corrupt it for nefarious reasons if it was implemented. I can compare it to a consumption tax with prebates (that I would advocate for state taxation) where FairTax.org made a proposal for federal taxation based upon it. FairTax.org's proposal corrupted the "consumption tax with prebates" which is why I opposed it.

6. Under the US Constitution there aren't "illegal" immigrants as the US Constitution does not grant Congress any authority to restrict immigration. The US Consititution only grants Congress the authority to provide "uniform laws of naturalization" for immigrants  to the United States. 

Aug 25, 2014 0:05:06 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) The expression, "voluntary private and public assistance," is rather misleading. Even if you do not intend for the term, "voluntary," to be carried over as a modifier of "public assistance"--it is rather ambiguous in that regard--the fact remains that "public assistance" is a mere euphemism for the forcible confiscation of private funds, and their redistribution to those whom the government considers more worthy of those funds than their previous owners.

(2) Your easy dismissal of Wikipedia's analysis is most interesting: You often cite left-leaning websites to attempt to prove this point or that; yet you show contempt for a truly neutral source. 

And I have a sneaking suspicion that your disdain for "unconstitutional laws that Congress has passed" goes far beyond those laws that have actually been declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and further encompasses those laws that you believe violate the provisions of the US Constitution--even if they have never been held to do so by the Supreme Court.  Am I correct in that assumption?

(3) If you merely gather wood from a forest and "create a piece of furniture with it," yet have no startup capital to begin a business; no knowledge as to how to create furniture in the most efficient manner possible (i.e. using the least amount of labor feasible); no knowledge of the best part of town in which to locate your business for maximum success; and no knowledge as to who your potential clientele might be, so that you may advertise effectively; then you really have not created any "wealth," but merely a piece of furniture that you may either use for yourself or give (or sell) to a friend or relative to use. 

(4) As President Obama might say (in an entirely different context), let me be clear:

I emphatically do not support the idea of our creating "rights" for potential people--just for actual people.

And I would argue that personhood is not defined by one's degree of socialization; therefore, it may not be equated with the instant of birth.

(5) Yes, I agree that politicians--both those with a "D" and those with an "R" beside their names--would very likely corrupt any proposal, in order to curry favor with their respective client groups.

(6)Where, exactly, does the US Constitution deny Congress the right to pass laws to control immigration?  

1. We live in a Constitutional Republic and have all consented to abide but the Constitution that expressly allows for taxation. Taxation is therefore voluntary and is not "confiscation" of property. We can certainly complain about the level of taxation as well as what's it's being used for but we can't state it's the involuntary confiscation of our property.

You also can't deny that the necessities of both children and adults are provided for both by private individuals and by government funding. It is both an individual (private) and a public (government) issue of compassion and morality.  

2. Wikipedia provides information based upon supportive documentation regardless of the general source of information. It cites a Congressional source but Congress does not have the authority to interprete the US Constitution. That role and responsibility resides exclusively with the Courts under the US Constitution.

3. You confuse "weath" with "trade" and they are not the same. A person that builds a stone castle has created wealth even though it may never be sold to anyone else.

4. The fact is that the Constitution only addresses the Rights of the Person and is the foundation for the laws of the United States. Right or wrong personhood has only been defined based upon the moment of birth and there is no disagreement on this. Not a single nation in recorded history has ever defined personhood as anything other than beginning at the moment of birth. There are differing "opinions" as to whether this is right so the issue is one of "opinion" as opposed to fact.

5. In agreement

6. 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 - See more at: constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html#sthash.cmU474oI.dpuf

The federal government's "powers" are limited by enumeration. If the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do something by enumeration then the Congress does not have the "power" to do it.

Aug 25, 2014 18:48:30 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) Actually, I would regard taxation as a confiscation of private wealth--money does not belong, ultimately, to the federal government, merely because if prints it (or for any other reason), but to the individual who has earned, inherited, or otherwise (legally) obtained it.  However, some level of taxation is necessaary, as a practical matter.  I just do not care for the enormous level required in order to feed, properly, The Wefare State.

(2)  As Wikipedia notes, however, the courts (including the Supreme Court) have never spoken precisely to this matter.

(3) A person who creates a stone castle, but "never sells it to anyone," has, indeed, made a substantial improvement of the raw materials he used.  But he has not created any "wealth."  (Except, of course, in the rather amorphous sense of an "unrealized capital gain," as the IRS would put it.)

(4) To base "personhood" upon "the moment of birth" seems immensely arbitrary, no matter how many countries do it (or have done it).

(5) We can probably skip this one, as there is no real disagreement between us here.

(6) Are you suggesting that "the States" should have the authority to stop illegal immigration. (If so, you should be pleased with the actions of Texas Gov. Rick Perry in this regard.) Or perhaps that "the People" (presumably, citizens in general) should be empowered to take vigilante action?

1. I don't care for the economic burden of the welfare state either but there is a fundamental differnce between us.

You support the current capitialistic economic model that results in well over 20% of jobs not providing adequate compensation so those people require welfare assistance.

I believe the capitalistic model needs to change so that a person working fulltime (on one or more jobs) receives adequate income so that they don't require welfare assistance.

In short you advocate policies that create the need for more welfare assistance while I advocate policies that reduce the need for welfare assistance.

2. In the Supreme Court decision of the US v Kim Wong Ark it addressed the "natural right of citizenship" which is "natural born citizenship" under the US Constitution. Wikipedia and many so-called legal experts are wrong when they state that the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue because the Court ruled that Kim Wong Ark was a US citizen based upon being born in the United States and subject to the juridiction thereof. Read the decision.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

3. The "improvement" is measured in dollars and dollars equal wealth. Take a similar case of a gold prospector accumulating a thousand ounces of gold but never selling it to anyone. The value of the gold they have is still worth over $1.2 million and $1.2 million represents quite a bit of personal wealth. The gold prospector doesn't have to sell the gold to be wealthy as the gold makes them wealthy.

4. I don't believe it would be accurate to state that selectiong the moment of birth in establishing personhood throughout recorded history can be claimed to be determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle (i.e. arbitrary). There must have been a common principle or reason for every nation in history establishing the identical basis for personhood. That doesn't imply the reason or principle was right but instead that if it was wrong then it was a commonly held reason or principle that was wrong.

6. Understanding that the federal government doesn't have this enumerated power then, in theory, that power could conceivable belong to the State (assuming that power was delegated in the State Constitution) but it would be impossible to enforce. While the State, could in theory, block foreign immigrants from crossing the international border they cannot prevent them from entering from another state. So Arizona, for example, could in theory block immigrants from crossing the border with Mexico it couldn't prevent the same immigrant from lawfully entering Arizona from California or from flying from Denver to Phoenix. The states cannot block immigration from another state under the Constitution.

No, the person could not prevent the immigrant as they would be violating the law in attempting to do so. The detention alone would be unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.   

Aug 27, 2014 2:08:27 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) Yes, I do, indeed--unabashedly--"support the current capitalistic model." It has functioned far better than its exact opposite (e.g. in the former Soviet Union) has; and much better than the social-democratic model of Europe has, also.

There is an enormous difference between mere intentions and actual results.  The intention of most left-leaning economic policies is, indeed, to help the poor.  But if those policies result in the attenuation of employers' net profits--all other factors being equal--those employers will inevitably hire fewer people and/or reduce employees' hours, and require a greater amount of output per person; in other words, it will inevitably result in higher unemployment and more stress upon those overburdened workers who actually do have jobs. 

(2) United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) did, indeed, establish that anyone born on American soil is to be regarded as an American citizen (jus soli).  But that is very different from its excluding others from American citizenship.

As Wikipedia puts it:  "Current U.S. law on birthright citizenship (citizenship acquired at birth) acknowledges both citizenship through place of birth (jus soli) and citizenship inherited from parents (jus sanguinis)."

(3) If the (hypothetical) gold prospecter who owns gold worth "over $1.2 million" chooses never to sell it, his economic condition will remain unchanged. He may, therefore, continue to live in poverty--or, perhaps, to live a middle-class lifestyle, albeit nothing extravagant.

(4) You are certainly correct that the ubiquity of a belief, throughout the ages and between different societies, does not automatically "imply [that] the reason or principle [behind that belief] was right..."

(6) If all the border states--and there are only four of these:  California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas--were to enforce their own southern borders, there would simply be no illegals in other states who might attempt to come from, say, Colorado to New Mwxico (which sits just beneath Colorado).     

1. I'm not an economic expert but I do know the primary differences between the Austrian, Keynesian, and Marxist economic philosophies and I certainly lean towards the Austrian economic philosophy (as do you) but I also see it's problems. The Austrian school of economics requires enough unemployment to force down compensation for labor. It requires this "coercion" in the market forces related to labor. It always requires fewer jobs than the number of individuals that need jobs.

The Austrian school of economics inherently creates a burden on a moral and compassionate society to provide assistance for those that cannot earn enough to provide for themselves because it demands unemployment to act as a coercive force to drive down the cost of labor through unemployment. It drives down the cost of labor to the point that many of those working full time can't afford the combined basic necessities of life that include food, shelter, health care, clothing, energy. etc.. It is a problem inherent in the economic model.

Unchecked the ecomomic model we both support creates the welfare state.

I admit that I don't have a solution for this problem but I see it exists. The cost of government welfare assistance, which isn't even enough to meet the needs today, is the indicator of how huge this problem is. Government welfare assistance is a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself and that is what many don't seem to understand.   

My position is that we need to fix the problem (i.e. people not being able to earn a living) as opposed to the symptom (i.e. welfare assistance for those unable to earn a living). If we fix the problem then the symptom goes away.

I don't have the solution to the problem but I know it's what we need to address.       

2. You summarized it accurately when you cited Wikipedia that states: "Current U.S. law on birthright citizenship (citizenship acquired at birth) acknowledges both citizenship through place of birth (jus soli) and citizenship inherited from parents (jus sanguinis)."

US law is "statutory" but the Constitution refers to "natural born" which is not "statutory" but instead the "natural (inalienable) right of citizenship" of the person. Jus soli is the "natural right of citizenship of the person" as it is not dependent upon any other person. Jus sanguinis citizenship is statutory, not natural, as it is dependent upon the parent(s) of the child.

In a very real sense this relates to the differnces between the "statutory ownership of property" and the "natural right of ownership of property" that we began to discuss (but for whatever reason you dropped out of the conversation). "Statutory v Natural" is the difference and the Constitution is specific in that it addresses "natural" and not "statutory" when it refers to "natural born citizenship" which was what the Supreme Court decision in the US v Jim Wong Ark addressed.

As I noted if we remove "statutory citizenship" by repealing all of Title 8 that provides for "naturalized citizenship" including jus sanguinis citizenship then were left with "natural born citizenship" that is esbablished by jus soli.   

3. We've both read stories of "the cleaning lady" that lived in near poverty that managed to accumulated a vast amount of wealth. How a person with wealth chooses to live has absolutely nothing to do with how much wealth they possess.

4. As we can probably also agree on "what is right" is an issue of subjective opinion. Slavery was once considered to be "right" but today the vast majority of people believe slavery is wrong. I believe (i.e. opinion) in the inalienable rights of the person and generally make my decisions upon what is right or wrong based upon that criteria. Others don't believe in the inalienable rights of the person and will make other decisions on what is right or wrong. It's all about opinion and that is what the "abortion" debate fundamentally comes down to. The question is about the criteria we use to force our opinions on others.

If we want to change the historical precedent of "personhood" in the United States then the criteria is a Constitutional Amendment. The criteria is high as it requires 3/4ths of the States to ratify an Amendment but that is a good thing because it sets a high standard for the "opinion" to change existing precedent.

6. What about all of the States that border Canada or states that have ocean borders are technically common to all other nations or the Mexican national that simply flies from Mexico City to Denver to enter the United States? Once they "legally" enter the United States they can go wherever they please under the US Constitution.

Aug 28, 2014 0:29:31 GMT pjohns1873 said:

(1) Like you, I cannot (reasonably) claim any special expertise as regarding the matter of economic theory. I know only what I have read; and that is, admittedly, rather cursory.

But your emphasis upon societal "compassion" circumvents the point:  Economics, just by definition, is entirely impervious to "compassion"--just as much as, say, mathematics is.  Or quantum physics is.  Economics is all about the way the world really is--not about the way a "compassionate" society might prefer.

(2) If "statutory" law has not been declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS--irrespective of some prior decision--then it is to be honored as the law of the land.

Note:  I did not realize that I had "dropped out" of any conversation. If you would prefer to resume that conversation, I will certainly reply.

(3) Yes, I have occasionally heard stories of people who appeared to be of very modest means, who nonetheless left rather substantial sums of money to their heirs--sums far in excess of what just about anyone would have expected. 

But ther real point is that they actually had that money; they simply chose to sock it away in a savings account, rather than use it for present consumption,  A person with $1.2 million worth of gold, by contrast, does not currently have the money; and he would probably be well advised to sell the gold while the price of gold, per ounce, is still very high.  It can fluctuate wildly.  At one point in 1980, for instance--during an era of "stagflation" and economic uncertainty--gold rose to as much as $850 an ounce; which, adjusted for inflation, would amount to $2,079 an ounce by 2006 standards--and even more today--according to my own understanding.  Just 10 years later, by contrast, it was worth only $383 an ounce.  So that $1.2 million could very easily be worth substantially less in the future, if it is not cashed in now.

(4) I do not believe a constitutional amendment would be required to establish "personhood" at some time other than the very instant of birth. But the Supreme Court's overturning a previous decison is not done frequently--stare decisis is a pretty powerful force--since that would require the High Court's admitting that it was wrong previously (even if it was other justices making that earlier decision).  Still, it is not unprecedented.  Brown v. Board of Education [of Topeka, Kansas] (1954) essentially overturned the separate-but-equal precedent established with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). 

(6) As a practical matter, the US really does not have a major problem with illegal immigration from Canada. And Mexican citizens who fly "from Mexico City to Denver" (or froam anywhere in Mexico to anywhere in the US) are so few in number as to be inconsequential. (I do not imagine that we might be able to prevent 100 percent of illegal immigration to the US--just as I do not imagine that we might be able to prevent all tax fraud, or all physical assaults--but it would be very nice, I think, to reduce it to a negligible amount.)   

1. As you accurately note economics is impervious to compassion but society is compassionate. The "welfare state" to compensate for the lack of compassion inherit in capitalism is therefore a necessity with capitalism. I don't believe you'd advocate for society to not be compassionate and I'm certain that I wouldn't ever want that to happen so we must provide the welfare assistance necessary to provide for those that capitalism "throws under the bus" in America.

The welfare burden, created by compassion in an economic system that lacks compassion, is a financial placed upon society and ultimately that burden falls upon the economic system. If we follow the current welfare money trail it looks something like this: Enterprise > Person (income earner) > Government > Person (welfare recepient) as the money changes hands and everytime the money changes hands "the laws of physics" state there is a loss. Is it possible to go straight from: Enterprise > Person so we can eliminate two steps from the process reducing the overally financial burden?     

2. Statutory law has nothing per se to do with Natural Law and the Constitution refers to "Natural" born citizenship and that refers to Natural Law and not Statutory Law. Why do you and others seem to miss that point. In the US v Kim Wong Ark the Supreme Court addressed this difference extensively.    

3. "Money" is a commodity. Legal tender notes (e.g. Federal Reserve notes) are a promissory note (that's what the word note means, a promise of payment) that under the laws of the United States is redeemable in a commodity (i.e. US minted gold and silver coins). Gold is money while a US American Gold Eagle is "Lawful Money" (i.e. it is "legal tender" money established by law). Notmhing in US law prevents the use of any commodity as "money" in a financial transaction and, in fact, gold can be specified as the only acceptable form of payment since 1977 when the gold clause was re-instated under the Ford adminstration.

4. There would have to be a dispute as to when "personhood" is established but there was no dispute about this during Roe v Wade. Both the Plaintiff and Defense attorneys agreed that there was no historical precedent other than the moment of birth for the establishment of personhood. Had it been a matter of dispute I would agree with your opinion that a reversal might be possible but the fact is that there was no dispute at all related to when personhood is established negates that possibility. There is no legal or historical precedent upon which to appeal the establishment of personhood at birth. 

On an interesting side note I can state there are grounds for overturning Reynolds v US from 1878 that supported laws prohibiting polygamy. The court established a Constitutional precedent in that decision (i.e. laws cannot be based upon religious opinion alone) and then ignored that precedent in it's ruling. The court cited the fact that polygamy was wide-spread in the non-Christian world and then based it's ruling on the laws of European Christian nations that imposed the Biblical definition of marriage. The ruling violated the precedent.      

6. "Illegal" immigrants don't immigrate across Canadian borders (very much) or by flying to Denver very often because it doesn't change the fact that they're still illegal immigrants. If we eliminate the federal immigrations laws then they would (assuming the Mexican border states prohibited it) because they would be legal immigrants. They would pay the additional costs to not have to be concerned with deportation. 

Anecdotally I worked with an "illegal immigrant" in the early 1970's that routinely flew to and from Mexico out of Las Vegas to avoid having to walk or drive across the Mexican border. He just acted like he was a tourist and there wasn't any effort to stop Mexican tourists at the time.