Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (16097)	4/5/2006 11:18:31 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541519

Not bad- and at least it's a step forward

To: Lane3 who wrote (16097)	4/5/2006 11:26:43 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541519

We were talking about rights the other day. I found this piece on another thread. " Bogus rights Feb 8, 2006 by Walter E. Williams Do people have a right to medical treatment whether or not they can pay? What about a right to food or decent housing? Would a U.S. Supreme Court justice hold that these are rights just like those enumerated in our Bill of Rights? In order to have any hope of coherently answering these questions, we have to decide what is a right. The way our Constitution's framers used the term, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights. Contrast that vision of a right to so-called rights to medical care, food or decent housing, independent of whether a person can pay. Those are not rights in the sense that free speech and freedom of travel are rights. If it is said that a person has rights to medical care, food and housing, and has no means of paying, how does he enjoy them? There's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy who provides them. You say, "The Congress provides for those rights." Not quite. Congress does not have any resources of its very own. The only way Congress can give one American something is to first, through the use of intimidation, threats and coercion, take it from another American. So-called rights to medical care, food and decent housing impose an obligation on some other American who, through the tax code, must be denied his right to his earnings. In other words, when Congress gives one American a right to something he didn't earn, it takes away the right of another American to something he did earn. If this bogus concept of rights were applied to free speech rights and freedom to travel, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium and microphone. My right to travel freely would require that the government take the earnings of others to provide me with airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Philosopher John Locke's vision of natural law guided the founders of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence expresses that vision, declaring, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Government is necessary, but the only rights we can delegate to government are the ones we possess. For example, we all have a natural right to defend ourselves against predators. Since we possess that right, we can delegate authority to government to defend us. By contrast, we don't have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure he didn't mean "thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress." The real tragedy for our nation is that any politician who holds the values of liberty that our founders held would be soundly defeated in today's political arena. Since 1980, Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics. townhall.com; Message 22327543

To: Lane3 who wrote (16097)	4/5/2006 11:31:33 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541519

I disagree with Samuelson on some of this but it's an interesting proposal. However, I don't see anything helpful happening in the near term.

To: Lane3 who wrote (16097)	4/5/2006 11:41:28 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541519

Op-Ed in todays NY Times says that the rate of illegals coming from Mexico hasn't increased, it's the rate of illegals staying rather than going back home, due to increased enforcement at the borders. nytimes.com This is consistent with what I've read about other historical periods of immigration crack-down. They don't really want to stay, they want to work and go back home but if it's too hard to go back home, they'll stay. amazon.com That's why the guest worker program is suggested -- it deals with the cultural realities of the people involved. At least, the Mexicans. Which make up between 55% and 70%, not "almost all". (My sense is that it's closer to 50-55%.) The first linked article says that in the early 80s about half went back home within the first year, by 2000 just 25%. Which makes sense. It's too damned expensive to live here. They can live very well in their own country, but they need a nut, a nest egg, to buy property or get a business going first. Some, of course, want to stay here, because they're freer here. It will be interesting to see whether Chinese start going back home now that they're starting to suffer a labor shortage. And then, who knows, guest workers in China?