What Exactly Is the Conservative Theory of Free Markets?
Conservatives say they are for free markets and free enterprise, but then I read stuff like this (have have added the bold):
Lynch supports Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty, believes illegal immigrants should have the same rights to employment as American citizens, opposes voter ID laws, advocates federal intrusion in local law enforcement under the guise of civil rights, supports the government taking private property on flimsy grounds, and offers no opposition to using drones against American citizens.
I agree with some of these concerns, but the one in bold is a real head scratcher. What theory of free markets do Conservatives hold that accepts as valid the government licensing of labor? On what possible grounds should a government bar me from hiring, say, a Russian immigrant to do my programming? Or crazier still, why can I hire a Mexican in my Mexico office but can't have the same person working for me in my Phoenix office?
I have a theory about the Romans that is probably shared by nobody. The Romans were strong and powerful and vital when they were creating a variety of citizenship types to accommodate multiple peoples who entered the empire in multiple ways. In particular I think of civitas sine suffragio or citizenship without the vote. But this was just one of many variations. By the first century AD (or CE per the modern academic trend), a lot of people of a lot of cultures and races and over a wide geography called themselves Romans.
By the end of the empire, the "reforms" of Diocletian and Constatine purged all flexibility from both governance and the economy (in sum, their laws amounted to the Directive 10-289 of the ancient world). By the time the Empire started falling apart, they had lost all ability to integrate new peoples or innovate with citizenship models. What was eventually called the Barbarian invasions began decades earlier as the attempted barbarian migrations. The barbarians wanted to just settle peacefully. And Rome desperately needed them -- their system was falling apart as their farms and countryside was depopulated from a combination of government policy and demographic collapses (e.g. plagues). Rome desperately needed new people to settle their farms and form the new backbone of the army and the barbarians desperately wanted to settle and had a lot of military skill, but they couldn't make it work.
“You seem stubbornly stuck on the notion that "your property" is a sovereign state.”
I’d be the last person to ever make that mistake. All I did was assume the existence of private property. Your real complaint, is that I didn’t in addition, assume the supremacy of the state over the individual.
“It isn't, whether you like that fact or not.”
Trust me, I like that fact a great deal. Unlike some around here, I distinguish between property obtained through violence and threats (e.g. all state property), and property acquired through production and voluntary trade.
“You can't own land, set up Al Queda training camps, and tell the US government to fuck off because you invited the ragheads onto your property.”
I must’ve missed something. Can you please quote the passage where I said wanted to do that?
“"Illegal aliens" are, definitionally, illegal.”
Illegal to whom? Do you really want to go down the road of simply defending what is legal?
“Libertarians are incapable of acknowledging the sovereignty of US soil”
Conservatives are apparently incapable of acknowledging the sovereignty of individual human beings.
“..you people daydream about separating your property from the nation,”
Huh? Well, at least it is comforting to know that you don’t have access to my daydreams.
“but would undoubtedly desire government assistance if your property were to be stolen by your neighbors,”
I remember an old Soviet official saying the same thing about food. Apparently USSR libertarians were supposed to starve themselves. I guess to a conservative, whatever services the government forcibly expropriates and monopolizes, the rest of us unwilling hosts should just be thankful for.
“I'm sure that your ideology seems perfectly rational to you, but it is devoid of pragmatism, historical perspective, or logic.”
Where has logic come into anything you mentioned? This is all about preferences. Some people prefer to rationalize using violence against the nonviolent, while others simply have no taste for it, not even if perpetrated through neatly uniformed proxies.
Cannot keep responding to you if you won't acknowledge the basics, or evade it altogether.
You are the guy who says "context!", yet you drop it as soon as it is inconvenient. So, now you are "(only talking about) one-on-one human interactions", and won't budge from there.
You won't get an answer on the "one on one", because it is absolutely not ONLY about the one on one, and never will be (see next paragraph).
You keep ignoring the request to state your assumptions, and explain how it works in your conceived world. Yet, it is clear as day that (to pick just one issue) the "invitee" must traverse across multiple people's property to get to your "inviter's" property (unless, of course, you conveniently just assume the "inviter" lives on the border - yeah right, that's it!).
You want to argue "how one person treats another", but ignore the others that would have to be involved and the potential impact on all them.
As a result:
1) you ignore scaling of this to the kinds of numbers we are seeing and to what would be likely in fully "open borders";
2) you ignore the case where the invitee's "peaceful" intent is only towards the inviter, and the possibility that the two are known collaborators of "non-peaceful, violent / coercive intent" to a third person;
3) you ignore how people need to organize themselves in order to avoid coercion from any other random person.
You acknowledge that laws exist, but conflating mutual agreement to be ONLY about agreement to coerce - and not about agreement to act within the bounds of the law, with the consequence in place as a dis-incentive. Not sure how you reconcile that view, but it seems intentional (as an evasion), however, it could well be you just don't have a fundamental understanding of this.
You accuse me of not having any real interest in how laws come to be, but I have already challenged you to explain how it all works in your conceived world. Still waiting (especially in light the above conflation), as you focused merely on the "brutal force" and nothing else. You say it is easy to construct it from "bottoms up" with the "desired goal" in mind , but then stop at just saying so.
We can agree that "fewer laws" are the way to go, in general. But don't ever say they are exclusively "my" laws. They are as much mine as they are yours - in the US, as least. Again, conflating this country with others known to have near zero process to allow citizens influence on the laws they are governed by.
You seem to think you know what I am talking about (and are rather dismissive of it), yet you stop well short of explaining anything about your conceived world to give any basis for agreement.
As I said, it is easy to say the world as it exists is wrong. It is d**n hard to describe exactly how the real world should (and, just as importantly, could/would) work. Too many stop at "should", and fail when applying it to the "would".
“if you won't acknowledge the basics”
What you consider basics are both wrong and irrelevant.
“You are the guy who says "context!", yet you drop it as soon as it is inconvenient”
I only drop context to follow your diversions into arguments about system. And then you accuse me of ignoring you. Some gratitude.
“So, now you are "(only talking about) one-on-one”
Uh no. That was me from the very beginning of my commenting here, and for years before that. You have yet to directly reply to my original comments, insisting on shifting your personal responsibility onto others.
“not ONLY about the one on one, and never will be”
Not only, but *always*. The certain sacrificing of innocents for the uncertain greater good has led men to enough monstrosities.
“You keep ignoring the request to state your assumptions”
Your persistently ignoring me is not the same as me ignoring you. Here we go again--private property exists. Morality is ultimately how one person chooses to treat another. A person is responsible for his own decisions, free of duress. Deferring moral judgement to others (like to Nancy Pelosi) doesn’t relieve you of responsibility for your actions. Law is discovered not dictated. Propriety justifies legislation, not the reverse. State rules are commands, not agreements. Any of this sound familiar?
“it is clear as day that (to pick just one issue) the "invitee" must traverse across multiple people's property to get to your "inviter's" property”
Finally, I’ve persuaded you! So you agree that any peaceful person anywhere in the world who only interacts peacefully and voluntarily with others should not have his movement restricted by the state! You finally understand the offense of the past century of immigration legislation. Now the important thing--now that you agree with me, how will that affect your decisions toward other human beings?
“You want to argue "how one person treats another", but ignore the others that would have to be involved and the potential impact on all them.”
No I don’t, I instead insist on recognizing it. If computer consultant Eric from Canada can get United Airlines to sell him a ticket to Miami, it is nobody else’s business. If a Miami homeowners wants to sell him a house, it is nobody else’s business. If a Miami grocer wants to sell him groceries, it is nobody else’s business. And if a Miami businessman wants to buy Eric’s services, it is only their business.
In no point in that process can the interference by armed agents be anything but indecent. Those like you who encourage, or even act, in defense of such interference are having a terrible effect on such people and should not be ignored.
Glad to have you on board.
“you ignore the case where the invitee's "peaceful" intent is only towards the inviter, and the possibility that the two are known collaborators of "non-peaceful, violent / coercive intent" to a third person”
Oh, please. That is your assumption not mine. And it applies to at most about 0.0000001% of migrants, if any, no different than someone moving from Oklahoma to Texas. Maybe Ohio police should hunt you down every time you travel to Cleveland on the excuse that your home state has (and it truly does have) killers, or rapists, or arsonists, or gangbangers, or child molesters, or others of “non-peaceful, violent / coercive intent”. By your reasoning, nobody should be allowed to freely move anywhere. All state, city, and county borders should be heavily regulated, probably with walls and troops and motes and whatever else conservatives are into.
Immigration rules are not about keeping the violent hordes outside the borders. Any look at who is denied access puts an end to that absurd claim.
“you ignore how people need to organize themselves in order to avoid coercion from any other random person”
So, you agree that Joe from Cleveland should be able to organize with his friends Jose from Mexico City and Pierre from Quebec to avoid coercion?
“You acknowledge that laws exist, but conflating mutual agreement to be ONLY about agreement to coerce - and not about agreement to act within the bounds of the law”
If you’d stop ignoring my comments, you’d stop making this error. I don’t know how else to get through to you. Try this: Can you imagine such a thing as lawless government? Lawless legislation? Lawless constitution? Does any of that compute with you?
Where there are people interacting, there are always laws. Always. It simply can’t be any other way. Organizing a police force to impose a set of rules on those people does not make those people more lawful. Such rules may, in fact, conflict with the law and be themselves lawless. Laws are not an option. Lawlessness is. I’m asking you to stop supporting lawlessness.
“Not sure how you reconcile that view,”
Probably because you’re not reading my replies to you.
“You say it is easy to construct it from "bottoms up" with the "desired goal" in mind , but then stop at just saying so”
You’ve got to be fricking kidding me. You can’t accuse me of not saying something if you are not going to read my replies.
“We can agree that "fewer laws" are the way to go”
No we can’t agree. I don’t believe that. I believe less violence and more lawfulness is the way to go. Unfortunately far too many, such as yourself, can’t grasp that legal and lawful are not synonyms. But fortunately, lawfulness (like lawlessness) occurs one human action at a time. The more people who can be persuaded against believing that violence is an appropriate tool to change nonviolent behaviors, the more lawful a people can become. A person doesn’t need to change state dictates for that (although he may need to ignore them). A person only needs to know how to act and be responsible for herself. What emerges, will be an improvement.
“They are as much mine as they are yours - in the US, as least”
Government dictates are only mine in the way a Texas drought is mine--I have no say in them, my agreement is irrelevant to them, and the only reason to even pay attention to them is try to prevent strangers from attacking me.
“conflating this country with others known to have near zero process to allow citizens influence on the laws they are governed by.”
Your illusions seem to never end. A state is not a country. A state is one of many institutions (most of them voluntary and truly lawful, btw) within a country. States have differences, but they are all called “states”, because of their similarities. One of those similarities, is how they enforce their dictates.
Every state has a process to influence legislation. That’s why politicians around the world are so rich and so much money flows to them, and every busybody and bully on earth claws and scratches his way into government. But let’s not be ridiculous. For any person, legalities are an unstoppable force disinterested in your agreement or mine. For a miniscule number of people, a miniscule number of those legalities can be affected. But unless you are a Jeffrey Immelt or Al Gore, you don’t even have that miniscule^2 affect. It is unavoidable--we all experience, and we always must experience, state rules as commands. A commander doesn’t ask for agreement. He doesn’t care what your conscience tells you. He tells you to obey or else he will escalate to whatever level of violence is necessary to force your compliance.
“You seem to think you know what I am talking about”
Yeah, I’m familiar with the status quo bias and statist propaganda. The problem is getting you to know what I am talking about.
“As I said, it is easy to say the world as it exists is wrong.”
And why you say it in this conversation is a mystery. I’m not trying to change the world. You’re the romantic with the preposterous delusions of grandeur. All I can do is choose how I act, and judge the actions of others. And that is a lot. You should try it for yourself, rather than just deferring to your commanders.
“Too many stop at "should", and fail when applying it to the "would".”
Exactly, instead of directing their attentions to something they actually can control--their own behaviors toward others--they bury their responsibilities in false propaganda about how they have a choice in politician’s dictates, or how a person need only change a government's rules, or how they need to defer all moral judgement to politicians, or how an system can somehow be entirely moral even when its treatment of moral agents clearly isn’t.
Man, you just twist and turn what I've said, and purposefully misread what I tell you, as if what I said was in Chinese. Then claim you've responded adequately, and yet have not really, truly addressed what needs to be addressed.
In the end, you are just playing around and not serious.
I thought you might be, but my mistake. Lesson learned.
Turns out, I was right, he isn't, just troll'n
"Man, you just twist and turn what I've said, and purposefully misread what I tell you, as if what I said was in Chinese."
No. You just don't like the implications of what you believe. That is probably the only thing we can agree on.
"Then claim you've responded adequately, and yet have not really, truly addressed what needs to be addressed."
Coming from someone whose entire postings on this topic have been nothing but a diversion, without a single contextual response to my original or subsequent comments, that really means a lot.
"Yeah, I see it. You are all about "judging", but have nothing to offer otherwise."
Or I could be like you, and just forego all judgment of human behavior, and simply accept as good whatever politicians dictate it is. Yeah, legal is right. Legal is justification. If anyone criticizes, just explain that you were only following orders or obeying the "law", and then sleep well at night. You've got good company in humanity's history (if "humanity" is even a good word for it).
"All those things that I've asked you to explain, that might bring an understanding of how your world view would work in reality, so that we have some basis of discussion, you ignore, or evade, again."
Except I explicitly did not. I guess truth (like morality, justice, appropriateness, human decency, etc.) has no place in your legalistic fallacies either.
"You are just playing around and not serious. More like trolling."
Do what you have to do avoid the the topic. Your circular position certainly isn't defensible (never has been in the centuries its been debunked), so I wouldn't expect you to try.
"I'm sure you will respond, so go ahead, you won't get a response from me."
My heart is broken.