Immigration

Darla, that is a side effect of uncontrolled capitalism, not the goal.
The goal is to make money.


Been checking into houses and acreage on NZ, looks pretty good. Have to go over there and see what area I want to live in though...

We're not talking about capitalism. we're talking about globalism. and that is the goal of globalism. It's capitalism removed from a moral context, which rewards human repression with increased orders for slave goods, and tells governments they MAY NOT protect their people from these infected global markets.
 
Yes. It does have a goal. It's about concentrating power into fewer and fewer hands. Control is the goal. The world's richest have all the money they could ever need, the only thing left to attain is control over others. that is real power. And they use the control system of money to force allegiance. they trumpet specialization so people will forget crucial skills and knowledge, and thus, be dependant upon their corporate system.

Its all about money though. Everything else is a side effect. Its like saying energy companies goals are pollution. No its making money concerns about pollution be damned.



No. It's about control and power, the ultimate currency. Money is a behavioral control mechanism, in that we need it to live, and we must do what corporations say to get it.
 
Money isn't anything but a commodity in a different form. You can grow your own potatoes, if you want. It's just that the specialization of labour allows us to produce much more.
 
Wow, here is the first, all-out, no apologies, liberal dissent on immigration I've seen. This is Eric Alterman, and he is a liberal, usually, very liberal. He is not one of the New Republic liberals. So this is interesting.

(Still) listening to the border radio ...


"Whatever meager credibility I have on the question of immigration derives from two facts: one, I spent a week, a while back, riding around with members of the INS in San Diego chasing illegal immigrants and trying to understand their lives; and two, like most upper-middle-class Americans, I exist in a web of endless exploitation of them, sometimes knowingly, often not, though with the single exception of the two (sisters) I've tried to help with legal issues, I never actually ask about their status. And even if I were to insist that everyone who worked for me had legal papers, I could hardly control the practices of say, the people who deliver my takeout or come over to fix my stuff when it breaks.

My point is that the current system implicates (and corrupts) all of us. I think many liberals are no less woolly-headed and simple-minded about illegal immigration than they were (and still sometimes are) about welfare. Yes, the yahoos exploit the issue. Yes, there's plenty of racism involved in the opposition. And yes, the victims are often the people with the least amount to say in the outcome, but that hardly makes the current system worth defending.

Personally, I support a fence. The current system encourages the horrific abuses that take place against immigrants attempting to sneak in. Naturally, I support allowing generous numbers of immigrants into this country, but I support doing so legally, first and foremost. I also think it encourages contempt for the law, which is a net negative in any society. (I also support the legalization of pot for the same reason.) And certainly any nation has the right to determine to whom it wishes to grant citizenship.

If a fence is the best way to enforce those choices, well, then, why not? For symbolic reasons? I don't care about "symbolic reasons." I care about reality. Present conditions invite the abuse of the poorest, weakest element of the system -- frequently by unscrupulous coyotes and, far less frequently, by nefarious or simply overtaxed law-enforcement types -- in order to further enrich those of us who can afford to pay higher wages and, more significantly, wealthy corporations at the expense of people getting a fair wage for their labor, as well as the ability of American unions to organize labor to resist conservative class warfare (which, if you haven't noticed, folks, is winning across the board).

Why are lefties who complain about enforcement of the law so eager to ally themselves with exactly the same position embraced by the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal? And why do you think lawyers and doctors, for instance, are so good at getting laws written to prevent immigrants from employing their qualifications achieved abroad to compete with them here, while unskilled American workers must see their wages depressed by an overcrowded labor market? Once again, it's the wealthy who benefit from the exploitation in the current system and the poor who pay for it. Julia Preston of the Times has a rundown of who benefits and who doesn't from the current compromise here. I'm going to stay away from the details, except to say, I support the end result, whatever it is, because ultimately, I believe in a society of laws, and because I'd rather see the poor and exploited at the mercy of the law enforcement officers with whom I drank and traveled in San Diego than the people who are doing the exploiting now.

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/

Hello, sensationalism and conspiracy.
 
We're not talking about capitalism. we're talking about globalism. and that is the goal of globalism. It's capitalism removed from a moral context, which rewards human repression with increased orders for slave goods, and tells governments they MAY NOT protect their people from these infected global markets.

That is an excellent definition of unfettered Capitalism. Capitalism has no moral context, and if you believe it does you should read up on early 20th Century America. That is what the right wing has always wanted to bring us back to, it's why they think FDR was the devil, and it's exactly what globalization is bringing us back to, little by little.
 
That is an excellent definition of unfettered Capitalism. Capitalism has no moral context, and if you believe it does you should read up on early 20th Century America. That is what the right wing has always wanted to bring us back to, it's why they think FDR was the devil, and it's exactly what globalization is bringing us back to, little by little.

Yep. And capitalism CAN be in a moral context if we choose to place it one. :)
 
Yep. And capitalism CAN be in a moral context if we choose to place it one.

That's called Socialism. Capitalism states that the markets should take the lead.

The only moral context for capitalism is Adam Smith's 'Invisible hand'.
 
Yep. And capitalism CAN be in a moral context if we choose to place it one.

That's called Socialism. Capitalism states that the markets should take the lead.

The only moral context for capitalism is Adam Smith's 'Invisible hand'.


No. It's capitalism within the context of other social standards. False Dichotomy much? you're intellectually bankrupt. When Invisible hand becomes the invisible middle finger, it's time to regroup.
 
All this invisible and multidimensional crap. Do you spend much time in the same reality as the rest of us AHZ ?
 
Capitalism doesn't consider social standards. It is amoral, for generating the 'wealth of nations'.

Socialism does. It is a mixed economy, where essential services (healthcare, education etc), things that market forces can't be trusted to deliver successfully are taken out of the sphere of the markets... and all others are left in.

Socialism is capitalism with a conscience....

You still gobbing off with the insults? Sad little angry man.. Get a life...
 
There is a difference between socialism and regulating business...

Socialism:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

How socialism applies to Communism:
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

regulation:
a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, esp. to regulate conduct.

There is a huge difference between the two.
 
Back
Top