no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

An Exchange

June 14th, 2007


Gustave de Molière wrote some satire back in the day – the quality of which I cannot hope to touch, probably ever. That said, I participated rather actively on a Detroit Free Press discussion forum for the article which inspired my post, “Jobs Americans Won’t Do”. Now, I try to stay away from public forums like this, because they are usually populated by idiots. Anyhow, what follows is a transcription of the discussion I had. For continuity’s sake, I have mildly re-ordered some of the thread, but I believe I have not omit or changed the implication of my opponent’s position. My portion of the debate began with a simple question regarding the nominal (and completely arbitrary) “illegality” of immigration. The response that followed started with something like, “Here, let me give you the definition of ‘criminal’…”

Again, it’s true. I couldn’t write better satire if I tried.

People used to say the same thing about slave harborers and run-away slaves. So by your logic, you *must* believe that slavery was right, up until that point it was abolished, at which juncture it became immediately wrong – and – at any point in the future, with one stroke of a legislative pen, slavery might once again be “right.”

Big2Supplier: Big difference between then and now. Those immigrant’s you described [pre WWI-era] entered legally. They did not suck off the taxpayer trough either.

I already addressed the tax-leeching that you mention, although I doubt it’s as big a problem as you want it to be. [note: I’ve been informed that this sort of thing was severely restricted back in 1996, but still, the idea persists] There’s a reason for this inequity: they don’t pay taxes, because you won’t let them pay taxes. Give them a legal job, and voila – they’re taxpayers, just like me, and presumably, you. The poor and the elderly suck off the taxpayer trough, too. Any complaints about them?

And I addressed the dubious claims of “legality” that you bring up, too.

Sit tight, I’m waiving my “fairy job wand” as we speak.

Am I to understand that you think slavery was right – until 1865?

Totally uncalled for. I’m second generation legally.

It’s not uncalled for – it follows from the logic of your argument.

Where’s Reggie White?

“It’s not uncalled for – it follows from the logic of your argument.” Not so my young friend. It follows YOUR logic. Entering the United States of America illegally, is illegal, period. I would chip in my hard earned money to build the bus that can ship 12 million illegal aliens out of here. Do I want people to have a better life, yes, legally. Pulling a Carl Lewis across the border is criminal.

Remember my key word: Illegal.

I have not lost sight of this, which is why I keep asking (and you keep dodging) the question of slavery. [Note: case-in-point, below…]

What is wrong with you?

I haven’t failed to examine the morality of my principles.

You keep asking a question that has nothing to do with this. Just as relevant: 87 octane or 89?

87, please.

Seriously, it’s actually relevant (my question.)

You’re saying that an action is wrong merely because the law says it’s wrong. Slavery wasn’t said to be wrong until 1865, from which it follows that slavery was right, until Lincoln delivered the emancipation proclamation. In the Third Reich – a democratically elected government, I might add – being Jewish was punishable by death. Does that make being Jewish a “criminal act,” and does it make all Jews “criminals?”

No – these arguments are patently retarded. And so is any other law which brands people criminals merely by the unfortunate accident of where they were born.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics