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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (5594)	6/12/2007 5:04:13 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Message 23619512

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (5594)	6/12/2007 5:37:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25737

Those employers who lure illegal low wage laborers across the border are passing along the enormous cost of social services and public education to US taxpayers. Not really. The US government is passing those costs along to the taxpayers. Both in the direct sense that the government is actually charging the tax, and in the larger sense that its the government who decides to provide these services to people in general and specifically to the illegal immigrants. ---- Edit - Not directly dealing with immigration, but on the general subject of such "passing on costs" - The Nanny Two-Step Ben Adler at TAPped writes: This clearly expresses a fundamental tenet of conservative/libertarian thinking: that engaging in risky behavior with serious social costs is an entitlement. People who are injured by metal bats, or fall ill from smoking or fatty food, cost the rest of us money. We pay their emergency room bill, their Medicare bills or their Social Security disablity insurance. Only someone willing to forgo those benefits should have the right to also opt out of public health laws like those passed by the New York City Council, or pre-existing ones requiring that motorcyclists wear helmets and drivers wear seat belts. But Beston, like all conservatives, makes no serious suggestion about offering such an option in our society (much less explaining how it would be practically possible.) Instead he merely sneers at the New York City government's efforts to lower the costs that he, like all other taxpayers, will ultimately bear (and that, should rising health costs force the government to raise taxes, Beston and City Journal would surely bray against as well). Ah, man, you're so close: That's exactly why many of us object to having the public take on such responsibilities in the first place. Behold the weird alchemical powers of public subsidy: You start with a paradigm case of a self regarding act—choosing to engage in risk behaviors with your own body—which traditional liberal principles would place outside the sphere of state regulation as a core component of personal autonomy. But throw some public funds into the mix and—Abracadabra!—what had been the exercise of an individual right is transformed into the "imposition" of a cost on society. No behavior is so private that you can't regulate or ban it, so long as you're willing to subsidize it first!... juliansanchez.com Message 23512250