I'll pass on nationalizing the FED, and stick with the free-market solution.

Maybe Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill for this has tainted the well, since I have never known him to support anything that would benefit the Republic.

Kidding aside, since Zarlenga insists that the value of money is solely derived by law, I have to suspect the rest of his argument. That premise fails in the face of history, in my opinion.

A lot to digest, but so far your link has it's major issue with the FED...an issue that I share with Ron Paul, and others. I also miss the gold standard, although the current size of the world's economy could never support it's return.

I will keep reading and report back just where (if any) I stray from the argument.

In the meantime, I will submit that anyone reading our posts to consider just why the Democrats demand that none of the reforms we have talked about can even be 'on the table', except for the welcome of open borders. That fact should get our attention, and raise the DANGER flag(s).

To concede to the Progressive demands is playing straight into their hands, and will only entrench their party perhaps forever in the 'drivers' seat. And I certainly include Rubio on my enemies list in this one regard....

P.S. I also deep down believe that a total failure is on the horizon...but would like to take punitive action so that it will come later, not sooner.

What the heck...we just may find a workable solution before that time, but only if we make the best choices in the interim.

dunk

Yeah...what jsa said.

I agree with your criticisms but those are all arguments against government beneficience at the expense of producers. Until and unless we reduce the size and scope of government at all levels, tinkering with the immigration policy is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I agree that getting government to limit itself is a sisyphean task. That's why i believe change will only come via a total systemic collapse. The true cause of all this mess is the nature of our monetary system. The solution is a change to the type of system proposed here : http://www.monetary.org/intro-to-monetar...
But, alas I fear none of this will happen. So get ready for the collapse.

I am only going to take issue on your plea for immigration reform, which you feel will 'level' the hiring playing field.

Pathway (read: rush) to Citizenship will play right into the Progressive's hands, and will only accomplish adding X million more voters to the Democrat voter roles. When this happens, the Conservative movement will cease to exist except in the history books.

If you think that the Democrat party will ever reduce the size of government, or even reduce the oppressive taxes (and laws) that we all hate, then you are sadly mistaken. The best that you will ever get from the Democrats, as I type, is more government, and if the borders are relaxed, more Democrats (even if they only speak Spanish)! None of the reforms that you mention will ever see the daylight. It will get worse beyond your belief....

Oh yeah, one other point: a large percentage of illegal workers add nothing to the economy, since their earnings are sent to their families in Mexico. But they DO add to the tax payers burden due to the social services that we refuse to deny them.

So...the sheer number of workers in the system does not automatically equate into an increase in the economy. If this were a truism, then California would be the nation's leader for being in the 'black'...instead of on the brink of default.

you never disappoint. It's funny. the punk thing came full blast my freshman year in college. many friends (girls) actually cut off their hair and dyed it to look like Billy Idol. they wore tight black leather pants and dark eyeliner, with short cropped locks. I could not identify. Kept my long hair, peasant skirts, and boots. because you never knew when the opportunity would arise to ride a stallion. here was my favorite bookstore in college, it still survives: http://www.prairielights.com/

hey, jsa, way to swoop in and garner a best line of the day right off the bat! welcome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PinBVYKQG...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiR...

I LOVE Billy

I agree khalling, I would also add that it is not the government's place to render one's personhood legal or illegal. Take away that restriction and many of the burdensome regulations and taxes businesses must pay and they would be able to pay their employees better and there would probably be a mix of blacks, whites and mexicans on every crew as the business owner would pay more attention to the skills of the worker he would be hiring and less to his legal status and whether that enables him to save on taxes and pay less. The problem is the government's intrusion in the hiring process and the onerous regulations and taxes foisted on the business owner. Remove those and the problem of illegal immigrant workers taking jobs would disappear. Additionally, economies are comprised of people, thus the more people you have the bigger your economy. Artificially restricting the number of people in a geographical area also leads to a reduced economy, fewer jobs and the above mentioned illegal immigrant problem. None of this can be solved with better border controls that don't address the abridgement of individual freedoms initiated by other government policies.

Zombies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1NrQYXj...

Given that we are considering a fictional limited government, the borders should be open to any who would care to come or leave without restriction. In such an environment, no one subset of ethnicity or religious minset could control the rest of society as the means to control them would not exist. Free market forces would dictate the form of society which would ever be evolving to match the wants of the public. Even if the entire planet were to immigrate to such a nation, as long as it is big enough (the US is by the way), there would be jobs enough for all those who care to work. As long as the governement is restricted to Rand's definition no one group could do anything with it against the rest even if they did control it.

No. I don’t agree with you. Look at the EU. Many people in England would love to get out of the union.Open borders have crushed them. Open borders is a Soros-sponsored folly that will lead to more centralized power and maybe even a global government-ruling body. I personally don’t want to live in Maryland and have some one in Columbia dictate to me what I can and can not do in my own backyard. THAT goes against nature. Sovereignty is just a civilized word to define humanity’s need to mark territory.

ability to enforce a rule, or a particular position has absolutely nothing to do with it being moral. If you delve into the subjectivity of morality, you essentially destroy any definition of the word because if anything is moral depending on your viewpoint, then nothing is immoral and the definitions are meaningless, and you are stating a contradiction.

Upholding morality is only a concern among the free association of men, who recognize the objective nature of it. Otherwise you are engaged in a defense of your life against those who would seize it for their benefit and your concern isn't morality, but survival.

That was painful to watch when it first aired! It was just as bad the second time, lol! They must have cracked up doing that scene. I wonder how many takes it took, lol

classic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pOq4hyoX...

There are some cultures/ideologies who have no intention of assimilating, but rather to obliterate and replace.

Hello MaxCasey,
Very good. The surest way to destroy a culture or heritage is to allow more immigration then can be or will assimilate. All cultures are not created equally.
Respectfully,
O.A.

yeah... that's why I cover my eyes too...
Shining Star dance...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQu_NLRvU...

well, yes, they are men, however, their dancing style was more suggestive than, say, clueless male dance moves lol

From Rand "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

So if we have unrestricted immigration what mechanisms do we have to ensure that those that wind up in government don't swing to the socialist, communist, or fascist side of the equation or begin to pander to folks with those ideals? Can we assume that folks would come here pro-individualists, laissez-faire capitalists? Heck we struggle with our own countrymen in this regard.

So while I understand your stance of "where ever I may roam", so long as there is a government with the ability and province to use force, and yes there should be a government for the reasons Rand advocated, there needs to be immigration controls.

Lots of other good points here to by the way, but imho, the one that stands out is the use of force, and the need to ensure that rational men, who respect individual rights are its caretakers.

Very good. When in Rome...

:) Men dancing... I try not to pay too much attention. LOL