And again, we aren't discussing anything every other country in the world doesn't do too.
And what does that have to do with the validity of the argument itself? This is every bit as preposterous a way to argue as it was when enlightenment folk argued that every other country owns slaves, too.
Sure, we could break this down to ultimately this is a govt plan to control the economy, just like we could say the police force is to keep criminals out of the work force, roads are built to control where businesses can locate, and the national education system is designed to control what work fields receive the best public training. This is a discussion on illegal immigration and you are turning it into a discussion on U.S. tariff policies
When a government tells you who can work for your company and who can't, that's the government wielding control in the economy. When skilled folk are restricted from being able to compete and produce in the economy, that's the government becoming excessively entangled.
The purpose of the police force is not analogous to any of those other issues. I do agree with getting rid of the Department of Education, though. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Canada can afford to relax its borders, it does not border a near-3rd-world country which openly encourages illegal immigration. Like I said in the previous thread, dig a tunnel from Mexico City to Canada, open it up to public access with no restrictions, then come tell the US how we should handle the situation. Until then, its easy to sit thousands of miles away from the issue and claim you'd open your borders too if you could. No offense Neil, like I said before and I think you already know, I generally hold your opinion in high respect, but you simply dont have a dog in this hunt.
You're not going to defeat the argument by stating I'm not close enough in proximity to make an assessment. That's simply terrible logic.
Here's something of interest: tracking populations of illegal immigrants is inherently difficult, but Canada and the US have about the same rate of illegal immigrants entering per naturalized citizen. Every year, the equivalent of 0.3% of the naturalized citizen population immigrates illegally into either country. So while the scale of the challenge is different, the relative struggle is not.
But like I said, whether or not Canada has the same problem bears nothing on the merits of the argument itself.
If Ive misunderstood your political history, I apologize. but I must admit Im confused how you can claim to be a traditional liberal, one who believes in a welfare system, universal (socialized) health care, and 'action' on climate change, and still throw in the middle of that that you are also for less taxes and smaller govt. Id say Im for less taxes and smaller govt, and also in favor of everyone getting a job and new house from the fed, if I thought I could have it both ways.
If you were in favor of socialized medicine, how can you also be in favor of not forcing everyone to pay for it?
Wasn't it you criticizing me earlier for not reading enough economics? And yet you're clearly confused about what a classical liberal, neoliberal, or libertarian is. I even made explicit who my economic beacon is, so to speak, in Milton Friedman.
To explain very briefly what this school of economic thought generally holds: liberty and freedom of the individual, in social and economic contexts, is the utmost ideal. This is an idea central to the history of the US, both in its founding and its latter success. It follows from that principle that smaller government is preferable, as the ability of government to represent all people is significantly limited compared to the power of the free market.
So how does one accomplish action on climate change without the nanny government? It falls on the consumers to patronize businesses who are greener in scope; the consumer needs to demonstrate that they are willing to pay the cost of the technology shift. Either way, that cost will need to be paid, it's just that doing so without government intervention is a freer, more efficient, way of doing so. Admittedly, it is completely possible that the majority of consumers will never look at their purchases in this light, but it's up to people like me to carry out the conversation and win the argument, not legislate my views upon others.
For something like universal health care, that would likely work through charity and non-profit organizations, to which those interested in supporting it would have to donate their money (and likely a considerably disproportionate amount compared to their fellow Americans).
