Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6861151" data-attributes="member: 562064">We&#039;re not just talking about the flow of illegal aliens; we&#039;re talking about control over the flow of legal immigrants, too.&nbsp; You put scare quotes around &quot;controls who can compete&quot; as if that&#039;s not exactly what the government is doing when they choose who is allowed into the country to work and who is not (and they also control under what conditions an American citizen or business can exchange with international parties).To an extent, I&#039;ve already addressed your criticism in the previous thread, where I agreed that Canada needs to do a better job relaxing its border.&nbsp; I wouldn&#039;t consider Canada to be a socialist country; like the US, it is a mixed economy.Well, Chris, I can only assume you&#039;ve misunderstood my posts or are simply not current on what I have said.&nbsp; For several years now, I have been a classical liberal in the mold of Milton Friedman.&nbsp; People should be free to make their own social and economic decisions, which means a small government.&nbsp; Now I agree with you that one of the primary roles of government is to protect people from physical harm, but I don&#039;t think it&#039;s role is to protect people from having to compete on the job market.&nbsp; If you were talking only about boosting security on this side of the border, we would be having a very different conversation.If you can find me a post where I&#039;ve encouraged bigger government and more taxes, I&#039;ll be surprised.&nbsp; In past threads, I have come down in support of a welfare system, universal health care, and action on climate change, in each instance because I felt it was a moral imperative or the scientifically reasonable response to take.&nbsp; Never, however, have I felt that these problems are best solved by government.&nbsp; Those who disagree with these goals should not be compelled by force to pay for them.You&#039;re not using those arguments against me; I don&#039;t agree with any of them.You want the government to mandate language.&nbsp; That is a most basic liberty you want to take away from the businesses and the people.&nbsp; If a business wants to serve Spanish clients, and thus offers an English and Spanish language option over the phone, that should be their prerogative.&nbsp; If you, as a consumer, don&#039;t like that they&#039;ve done so, stop supporting them and write them a letter telling them why you&#039;ve done so.&nbsp; You don&#039;t need a nanny state to tell you what languages are allowed and which aren&#039;t.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 6861151, member: 562064"] We're not just talking about the flow of illegal aliens; we're talking about control over the flow of legal immigrants, too. You put scare quotes around "controls who can compete" as if that's not exactly what the government is doing when they choose who is allowed into the country to work and who is not (and they also control under what conditions an American citizen or business can exchange with international parties). To an extent, I've already addressed your criticism in the previous thread, where I agreed that Canada needs to do a better job relaxing its border. I wouldn't consider Canada to be a socialist country; like the US, it is a mixed economy. Well, Chris, I can only assume you've misunderstood my posts or are simply not current on what I have said. For several years now, I have been a classical liberal in the mold of Milton Friedman. People should be free to make their own social and economic decisions, which means a small government. Now I agree with you that one of the primary roles of government is to protect people from physical harm, but I don't think it's role is to protect people from having to compete on the job market. If you were talking only about boosting security on this side of the border, we would be having a very different conversation. If you can find me a post where I've encouraged bigger government and more taxes, I'll be surprised. In past threads, I have come down in support of a welfare system, universal health care, and action on climate change, in each instance because I felt it was a moral imperative or the scientifically reasonable response to take. Never, however, have I felt that these problems are best solved by government. Those who disagree with these goals should not be compelled by force to pay for them. You're not using those arguments against me; I don't agree with any of them. You want the government to mandate language. That is a most basic liberty you want to take away from the businesses and the people. If a business wants to serve Spanish clients, and thus offers an English and Spanish language option over the phone, that should be their prerogative. If you, as a consumer, don't like that they've done so, stop supporting them and write them a letter telling them why you've done so. You don't need a nanny state to tell you what languages are allowed and which aren't. [/QUOTE]

Verification