Interesting Trump article by Sheldon Richman


#1

Worth a read, just for its brutal honesty. Richman is somewhat obscure outside of free-market anarchist circles, but well-known within.

**For decades the Republican leadership (committed to corporate privilege and costly empire) encouraged a base of jingoists, protectionists, nativists, and other “politically incorrect” types, whom it then largely took for granted. The leadership wanted their votes, but not their opinions. It never expected those folks to one day embrace a presidential candidate who said aloud whatever they were thinking. So it underestimated Trump and now is in big trouble.

But the Republican elite is not the only Victor Frankenstein in this story. There’s another, related creator of the Trump creature: government.

Americans have been assured for ages that the government in Washington could competently manage the economy, their retirement benefits, medical care, the culture (through immigration control), and foreign affairs. But with each passing year the government’s foolishness across the board has become blindingly clear. The national debt soars; the annual budget deficit is enormous; Social Security and Medicare have huge unfunded liabilities, recessions strike periodically; taxes are onerous; economic growth is anemic; and wars go on forever. But privileges for the well-connected keep flowing. The politicians’ response consists of little more than bailouts for the rich and symbolic gestures for the rest.
**
I really love the ending to his piece, as a fine rebuke to Trump’s absurd nationalism:

We shouldn’t aspire to be a great nation. We should aspire to be fully free persons.


#2

Did I miss something? Your man, Obama, has been in charge for the last seven and a half years when more of this stuff has been happening. And now we have your candidate, Hillary, who has been taking millions of dollars from whom you would define as “the bad guys” like Goldman Sachs. So what’s your point? It sounds like Haillary and Bill have been among your bad guys to me and are taking money from them. Reading this it would seem that you are for radical change, but we know that you are a big government Hillary fan. Perhaps you would do well to join us instead of condemning us. We are not the enemy; big government is.

As for depending upon the government, my wife and I haven’t. We did all we could to save money for our retirement working with the benefits and penalties the government provides or imposes on us. Obama Care cost my wife the medical care plan that she had from her employer after she retired. It was ruled to be a “Cadillac plan,” and that cost us more than $6,000 a year.

I know you’ll call me “a racist” for saying this, but it is the truth. People who work hard and save deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors and planning. That’s the capitalist system, but I know that you despise that as a liberal.


#3

You’re not paying very close attention to my posts, and so you’re misunderstanding my views and positions. In the abstract, the closest way to define my political views would be “left-wing free-market anarchism.” In the actual world that I have to navigate pragmatically, however, I am supporting Hillary over Trump. Both parties want big government. I just happen to think the Democrats’ brand of European socialist big government is morally preferable to the Republicans racist, authoritarian jingoism form of big government.

When you and I say we oppose “big government” we mean completely different things. To me, your nationalism, and the oppressive immigration and social policies you seem to favor, are among the most odious possible forms of “big government” imaginable.


#4

And Trump represents Big Government; just a different flavor than Hillary.

You can’t review his policies, and what he wishes to spend on, without coming to that conclusion. He’s not going to the shrink the debt, he will, just like Obama, double it. So too likely would Hillary.


#5

> politicians are “all talk, no action.” (We should be so lucky).

This is my favorite line. My favorite government is gridlock and inaction. Unless they’re repealing statutes, ordinances and administrative rules.


#6

I get it. 60 plus years of failed policys, lying greedy politicians, and now, today, it’s all Trumps fault. LOL! You need a doctor.


#7

> You’re not paying very close attention to my posts, and so you’re misunderstanding my views and positions. In the abstract, the closest way to define my political views would be “left-wing free-market anarchism.” In the actual world that I have to navigate pragmatically, however, I am supporting Hillary over Trump. Both parties want big government. I just happen to think the Democrats’ brand of European socialist big government is morally preferable to the Republicans racist, authoritarian jingoism form of big government.

You sound like me when I was in my 20s. I’m 67 years old now. Back then I thought that I was a “liberal - libertarian.” Talk about an oxymoron! I thought that “liberal” was cool because it made you look like a member of intellectual elite. Then I started working in the real world and found out what liberalism was all about, at the least the way it was in the 1980s and '90s.

Liberals classify people by race and gender and then set up regulations and quotas in the name of “fairness.” These classifications and rules never go away, even if the perceived inequities are corrected, because liberals divide people into political constituencies. They cultivate blocks of voters that give them support, no matter how corrupt the liberal practitioners are. Hillary Clinton is a prime of example of the totally corrupt, incompetent liberal politician. She is a cancer on the body politic, and if I were a liberal I’d be looking for way to jettison her foundation and her whole family from the leadership of my political party.

Today liberalism has morphed into full blown socialism complete with property rights seizures and income redistribution. It regulates, taxes and spends, primarily for the financial benefit of the politicians who run it and the people who support them. Then it throws a few crumbs to the people liberals claim they want to help. The old Soviet Union worked the same way.

> When you and I say we oppose “big government” we mean completely different things. To me, your nationalism, and the oppressive immigration and social policies you seem to favor, are among the most odious possible forms of “big government” imaginable.

Yea, I wash and iron my KKK sheets every day so that they will be nice and bright. :thatsfunny:

All I have advocated is that the laws that on the books with respect to immigration are enforced. Immigration should be an orderly process in which undesirable people (criminals, the insane and especially terrorists and big time drug dealers) are kept out of the country. People who over stay their visas should be asked to return their home country. Those are the laws that nearly all of the countries in the world enforce. Just try and overstay your visa in Mexico and see what happens to you.

For that you say I advocate “oppressive immigration and social policies.” I guess for you any enforcement of immigration laws is “oppressive.” You are one of those “free thinkers” who believes that nations should have no borders at all. People should be free to come into a country, take advantage of the social services from the most generous country, vote for their leadership, and then leave to live off of someone else’s generosity when that country goes bankrupt. That is just a load of crap. Don’t you care about people who work and save and live by the rules? Those people are backbone of a civil society.

One more bright idea that you came up with was that we should go to Black Lives Matter tell them that we, as conservatives, are their allies for “smaller government.” For them “smaller government” translates into less police protection for the minority neighborhoods according to you.

Back in the 1960s there was joke for people who didn’t like police, “The next time you are in trouble, call a hippie.” For you there is another joke, “The next time you are in trouble, call a gangbanger.”


#8

The immigration system should be something you can use if you aren’t dangerous. Currently, we only allow 4 discrete categories of people in, and ban anyone else. Which is just nonsense.

> (criminals, the insane and especially terrorists and big time drug dealers) are kept out of the country. People who over stay their visas should be asked to return their home country.

Except, we know many if not most of the overstays, are due to USCIS dragging its feet in processing their renewal requests.

People should not be punished because our Government was incompetent.

> For that you say I advocate “oppressive immigration and social policies.” I guess for you any enforcement of immigration laws is “oppressive.”

The current system is worse than the DMV and the VA combined. Only, if you fail to get you paperwork through, you become a criminal.

That is not rational policy. This right here, is NOT rational policy:

It is red-tape BS, and if you took five minutes to actually look it over and take it in, you’d realize it yourself.

You’re throwing immigrants a lemon, and you either don’t know, or don’t care.


#9

I am surprised it is not Bush’s fault. This administration never wants to accept blame for anything and if Hillary gets in she too will blame the republicans. I do not see how the republicans have been rolling over playing dead for the democrats.


#10

Your “chart” is published by an outfit called “Immigration Road” which is designed to help illegals BECOME “legal” and is meaningless.


#11

Once again I read about jobs that Americans will not do so we need illegals to flood the country. Almost 95 million Americans out of work and jobs to be had that Americans will do but are filled by low skilled illegals who hate the country. Oh but then we are told that they fill jobs that Americans will not do implying that these illegals are all working on farms when it is less than 3%.


#12

As Adam Smith pointed out, free circulation of labor is critical to any free trade system. Without this, you don’t have anything resembling free trade. What we have is a system where capital can move with relative freedom, but workers cannot. Who do you suppose that benefits? There’s no real evidence that conservatives have ever wanted “free markets.” When they use this term, they actually mean “markets rigged in favor of the wealthy.”


#13

Individuals CAN move freely - within their nation-state. Within THIS nation-state, anyway. For the moment, anyway…as Democrats work to put up obstacles to free individual movement.

Borders are a reality and a necessity of territorial government. AND THEY ARE UNIVERSAL. Obliterating OURS only allows OTHER nation-states that do NOT have such insane policies, to flood OUR land.

And end our sovereignty and turn us into a colony of a nation-state that does NOT have these fantasy ideas you hold.

Know what is involved in immigrating to Mexico? Know what is involved in immigrating to Iran? To LEAVING Iran?


#14

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE 2016 DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM (DV-2016)
Program Overview
The Congressionally mandated Diversity Immigrant Visa Program is administered annually by the Department of State. Section 203© of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides for a class of “diversity immigrants,” from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. For fiscal year 2016, 50,000 diversity visas (DVs) will be available. There is no cost to register for the DV program.
Applicants who are selected in the lottery (“selectees”) must meet simple, but strict, eligibility requirements in order to qualify for a diversity visa. Selectees are chosen through a randomized computer drawing. Diversity visas are distributed among six geographic regions and no single country may receive more than seven percent of the available DVs in any one year.
For DV-2016, natives of the following countries are not eligible to apply, because more than 50,000 natives of these countries immigrated to the United States in the previous five years:
Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (mainland-born), Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.
Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible.

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/DV-2016-Instructions-Translations/DV_2016_Instructions_English.pdf


#15

Why bother with the Department of State’s immigration lottery? All you need to do is go to Mexico and walk over the border. Only chumps obey the law.


#16

Yet capital can move freely across borders. Capital and labor should flow together, it’s an economic imperative. Supply & demand will act to subvert man made law if it interferes.

> Obliterating OURS only allows OTHER nation-states

And yet, we had an open border for 140 years. We had a policy of accepting 98% of newcomers for 30 years after that.

Neither history, nor economics, squares with your point of view. We can protect ourselves from seedier elements while having freer immigration than we do right now. We do not need to gate people who are not dangerous.

Protectionism is a crock, you of all people should have realized that.


#17

Close the borders. Enforce the laws. Canada needs you.


#18

Dave, then you admit that this chart shows how the immigration system works. Or rather, doesn’t.

Each time you defend the legal system, you’re defending the hot mess shown in that image. ***Think on that. ***


#19

No, fix the laws, then enforce them.

Make them rationale, not this god awful mixture of Union BS, of location lotteries, of paperwork delays that stretch on for decades.

If you want immigrants to respect the system, ***then make it respectable. *** It’s that simple.


#20

Capital can move freely by OUR laws. That’s all we control.

And that’s a fundamental right - the right of private property.

Other nations do not recognize that right.

We have freedom to leave at will, also.

What we do NOT do is allow unknown, un-vetted aliens IN.

That’s it, cooked down to its essence. And only someone suicidal or paid to push sophistry, would even pretend to favor no restrictions of others, possibly hostile, possibly a public burden, to enter.

That what Ellis Island was? An open border?

You score no points when you argue a lie. THE WHOLE POINT of Ellis Island was to screen and turn back those who were not suitable for admission to this nation.

We never DID have open borders. First the individual States set limits on the pier. Later, in the Industrial Age, Immigration functions were co-opted by FedGov and Ellis Island made a checkpoint and center.

And we did NOT have such an elaborate Welfare State. As Friedman so eloquently pronounced, Open Borders and a Welfare State are an impossible combination.

No. This argument is what is the crock.