The Political & Philosophy Thread

[CiG]

If you say so. Workers make up a part of the market, so I don't think that makes any sense. A slave market isn't the same as a free market as far as I'm aware. Has an economist actually made the argument?

Closest I've seen is someone say you should be allowed to sell yourself into slavery.

 

[CiG]

How do you even keep people enslaved and working for you in a free market if the very nature of this free market means the slaves can simply revolt and overthrow their masters without having to worry about the state stepping in?

It just makes no sense to me.

 

[rms]

lol it worked for centuries man

cost of suppressive force < cost of paying for labor

 

[CiG]

In that case free markets are shit then. I never realized they extended to absolute freedom where might makes right. I always thought it was an economic concept with some standards.

I've never seen anybody until now actually argue that this is what a free market means.

 

[Dak]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions. Based on its political and legal rules, a country’s free market economy may range between very large or entirely black market.
............
No modern country operates with completely uninhibited free markets. That said, the least restrictive markets tend to coincide with countries that value private property, capitalism and individual rights.

People are generally clamoring for free-er markets when they clamor for free markets. Not absolutely free markets. That would indeed require the dissolution of national borders, among many other things.

 

[Einherjar86]

Voluntary exchanges between individuals no doubt are an element of free markets, but that’s not the basic theoretical kernel of “free markets.”

And furthermore, an American business owner hiring an undocumented immigrant qualifies as a voluntary exchange between two individuals.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Mexico isn’t “sending” anybody. They’re just not stopping people from leaving.

Saying a nation supports free markets is oxymoronic, because if it really, truly supported free markets then it wouldn’t care about its borders.

Nice try Saul but no one cares about purity spirals enforced by people that don't even believe in them.

Voluntary exchanges between individuals no doubt are an element of free markets, but that’s not the basic theoretical kernel of “free markets.”

And furthermore, an American business owner hiring an undocumented immigrant qualifies as a voluntary exchange between two individuals.

What is the "basic theoretical kernel"?

Sure, but invasion of foreigners against the democratically-elected will of the people isn't a voluntary exchange.

 

[Dak]

Voluntary exchanges between individuals no doubt are an element of free markets, but that’s not the basic theoretical kernel of “free markets.”

And furthermore, an American business owner hiring an undocumented immigrant qualifies as a voluntary exchange between two individuals.

I also do not know what this "basic theoretical kernel" is. We don't have a free market. The US has a relatively free market internally compared to some/many countries. Externally, there is no free market. Even "free trade deals" are faaaaar from it. No one in this thread is trying to be an ancap against immigration.

Illegal immigrants are sometimes documented. So do we say "Undocumented illegal immigrant" and "Documented illegal immigrant" to get hyperaccurate? Inquiring minds. I'm surprised you took this tack in suggesting the business owner and illegal immigrant are engaging in voluntary exchange. I'm pretty sure right here on this board I was told that voluntary exchange is actually a fantasy of impossibly isolated interactions, failing to take into account the oppression of even our need to eat. But fine, we will go this way. The illegal immigrant lacks the legal standing to enter into such an exchange, and the business owner is trying to deprive both the American worker and the American welfare receiver.

 

[CiG]

Good point. Saying that an illegal immigrant is in the position to make a voluntary choice contradicts basically everything certain people say about power dynamics. I seem to also remember it being said that there is no actual choice involved in a capitalist system because you either work or starve and that's not a real choice.

 

[Einherjar86]

What is the "basic theoretical kernel"?

I also do not know what this "basic theoretical kernel" is.

a) it doesn't matter what it is, because I was only pointing out what it isn't.

b) if I were to point it out, the simplest description would be accelerationism. It is little to do with exchanges or transactions between individuals--which, as I said, do comprise an element of market experience--and much more to do with arrangements of capital between impersonal (and today, mainly international and intercontinental) groups. Capitalism--or free market ideology, the premise that undergirds the concept of "free" or "deregulated" markets--really has very little to do with voluntary exchanges.

Sure, but invasion of foreigners against the democratically-elected will of the people isn't a voluntary exchange.

A "democratically-elected will of the people" has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. This is the basic conflation that occurs within the ideology of the free market, at least within the U.S.: we supposedly want free (or freer) markets, but actually only for "us."

The contradiction here is that if free(r) markets are a universal ideal (i.e. if everyone should want them), then we should be extending them to everyone; but this is precisely what doesn't happen, because we also like to mix free market ideology with nationalism. Alas, these two things don't truly mix. Nationalism means regulated markets, but regulations that occur at the "democratically-elected" parameters.

So as you see, we don't have even remotely free markets. We just have markets regulated the way "we" want them.

We don't have a free market. The US has a relatively free market internally compared to some/many countries. Externally, there is no free market. Even "free trade deals" are faaaaar from it. No one in this thread is trying to be an ancap against immigration.

And I know you know that, but the vast majority of deplorables saying they want deregulation and no immigrants taking their jobs don't realize this, and they appeal to freer markets as the solution--when in fact, truly freer markets feed the immigration "problem."

I'm surprised you took this tack in suggesting the business owner and illegal immigrant are engaging in voluntary exchange. I'm pretty sure right here on this board I was told that voluntary exchange is actually a fantasy of impossibly isolated interactions, failing to take into account the oppression of even our need to eat. But fine, we will go this way. The illegal immigrant lacks the legal standing to enter into such an exchange, and the business owner is trying to deprive both the American worker and the American welfare receiver.

Surely you don't believe that voluntary participation/action demands legal standing...? I mean, that would imply some kind of regulation that ordains whether or not a transaction is taking place voluntarily...? Seems a bit of an oxymoron.

As far as voluntary transactions go, there is no such thing in reality because regulatory conditions are always present. They'll never be not-present. This doesn't mean that aspects of voluntarism can't be experienced at an individual level. An immigrant from Colombia taking a job on an American farm might be fully aware of their paucity of options, but still feel as though they've chosen to work there. The problem is that the specter of voluntarism masks the more complex reality of accumulation and regulation. People tell themselves fairy tales about individualism and voluntarism, and these make for quite real experiences; but they don't explain the nature of the beast.

Ultimately, exchanges between parties are both consenting and conditioning--voluntary and imbalanced. As Marx said, humans "make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

a) it doesn't matter what it is, because I was only pointing out what it isn't.

lmao

b) if I were to point it out, the simplest description would be accelerationism. It is little to do with exchanges or transactions between individuals--which, as I said, do comprise an element of market experience--and much more to do with arrangements of capital between impersonal (and today, mainly international and intercontinental) groups. Capitalism--or free market ideology, the premise that undergirds the concept of "free" or "deregulated" markets--really has very little to do with voluntary exchanges.

Basically any common definition outside of a Marxist textbook would disagree with that definition, and you still failed to actually define what it is beyond "arrangements of capital between impersonal groups" (something that would encompass one government selling nationally-controlled oil fields for another's nationally-owned nuclear weapons, for example), but ok, it's a start.

A "democratically-elected will of the people" has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. This is the basic conflation that occurs within the ideology of the free market, at least within the U.S.: we supposedly want free (or freer) markets, but actually only for "us."

In democratic systems, political power can dictate economic systems. You are unaware of this basic fact?

Your second sentence is both a strawman and historically a lie. Over the last century at a minimum we've seen gradual reductions in trade barriers in response to other trade barriers. The Eurozone and NAFTA are just two of the most obvious examples to anyone that has studied this to even the slightest degree beyond regurgitating Noam Chomsky lectures.

The contradiction here is that if free(r) markets are a universal ideal (i.e. if everyone should want them), then we should be extending them to everyone; but this is precisely what doesn't happen, because we also like to mix free market ideology with nationalism. Alas, these two things don't truly mix. Nationalism means regulated markets, but regulations that occur at the "democratically-elected" parameters.

So as you see, we don't have even remotely free markets. We just have markets regulated the way "we" want them.

See above, and I'll add that the current resurgence in nationalism is a response due to inequitable trade barriers. Mexico allows free flow of migrants here, while policing their own borders harshly. Saudi Arabia and Israel direct Syrians towards Europe, while Europeans cannot easily enter those countries.

What would you consider to be "remotely free"? Abolition of citizenship and borders?

And I know you know that, but the vast majority of deplorables saying they want deregulation and no immigrants taking their jobs don't realize this, and they appeal to freer markets as the solution--when in fact, truly freer markets feed the immigration "problem."

"Deplorables" represent a relatively new phenomenon, and they do not appeal to free markets at all. Virtually overnight Trump has turned "free trade" into a dirty word among much of his Republican voterbase.

As Marx said

lmao

 

[CiG]

Even funnier I thought was that Trump's trade policies had many on the left reacting as if they're Mises devotees.

 

[Einherjar86]

lmao

Laugh your ass off all you want, you're still not trying to understand what I'm actually saying.

Basically any common definition outside of a Marxist textbook would disagree with that definition, and you still failed to actually define what it is beyond "arrangements of capital between impersonal groups" (something that would encompass one government selling nationally-controlled oil fields for another's nationally-owned nuclear weapons, for example), but ok, it's a start.

You're incorrect about "any common definition." Plenty of economics textbooks would offer similar definitions. That's the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.

Modern conservative economics tends increasingly toward micro- because they glorify and sanctify the individual. This inevitably results in a very narrow and incomplete idea of market freedom and voluntarism, and how these values operates on more complex scales. You have to get a little abstract if you want to comprehend inhuman systems.

In democratic systems, political power can dictate economic systems. You are unaware of this basic fact?

Of course they can; but they're not dictating a "free market." That's your misdiagnosis.

Your second sentence is both a strawman and historically a lie. Over the last century at a minimum we've seen gradual reductions in trade barriers in response to other trade barriers. The Eurozone and NAFTA are just two of the most obvious examples to anyone that has studied this to even the slightest degree beyond regurgitating Noam Chomsky lectures.

This entire conversation goes back to a post about voting, and how certain arguments sway voters. What happens historically is very different from what most people believe; and it's far more often what people believe that dictates how they vote. I'm discussing the ideas that circulate and get all confused with one another among a large demographic of voters. I'm not talking about what has actually happened over the past century.

I vote democrat not because I think it's going to dissolve national borders or promote a global marketplace (although I do think the latter is a vision worth pursuing). My concerns have to do with how racial sentiments get bound up with misguided beliefs about economics.

See above, and I'll add that the current resurgence in nationalism is a response due to inequitable trade barriers. Mexico allows free flow of migrants here, while policing their own borders harshly. Saudi Arabia and Israel direct Syrians towards Europe, while Europeans cannot easily enter those countries.

The current resurgence in nationalism has far more to do with race than it does with economic history. You seem to be unaware that most people know very little about economic history. They buy what conservative media outlets sell them about race, because that's easier to understand than the history of trade barriers in the Eurozone.

What would you consider to be "remotely free"? Abolition of citizenship and borders?

Free for whom? Markets or individuals? That's the important question.

Please know that I'm not advocating for some kind of dissolution of borders or rampant immigration into the country or even some kind of global anti-nationalist market. I'm merely saying that there is a knot of irreconcilable conflicts within the idea of "free market" that goes completely overlooked by many who are simultaneously eager for racial isolationism. I'm not accusing you and anyone else here of this (at the present moment, at least); I have a feeling that you and Dak probably know more about 20thc economics than your average voting republican or democrat. But still, you look at it from a very particular perspective that I don't share.

The economy, as it's discussed widely in the media, is the smokescreen for a nationalistic pride stoked by racial discontent. When most people talk about "freedom" they mean something very particular: freedom for me (or, maybe, for us--but not them).

"Deplorables" represent a relatively new phenomenon, and they do not appeal to free markets at all. Virtually overnight Trump has turned "free trade" into a dirty word among much of his Republican voterbase.

You're quite wrong here. Only the term is new; what it describes has been festering for a long time now.

 

[Dak]

a) it doesn't matter what it is, because I was only pointing out what it isn't.

b) if I were to point it out, the simplest description would be accelerationism. It is little to do with exchanges or transactions between individuals--which, as I said, do comprise an element of market experience--and much more to do with arrangements of capital between impersonal (and today, mainly international and intercontinental) groups. Capitalism--or free market ideology, the premise that undergirds the concept of "free" or "deregulated" markets--really has very little to do with voluntary exchanges.
...............
So as you see, we don't have even remotely free markets. We just have markets regulated the way "we" want them.
...............
Ultimately, exchanges between parties are both consenting and conditioning--voluntary and imbalanced. As Marx said, humans "make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

Of course the terms get fuzzy at the margins, but even with "macro" level economics, we see exchange at levels of voluntarism between larger entities. Capitalism is, fundamentally, private property ownership (capital). Market exchange facilitates capital growth. Regulation does indeed affect these exchanges, and always will. Even in the absence of a national government we would see independent standards agencies. But, People can voluntarily trade within a trade framework which they do not have to voluntarily comply with (eg, paying sales taxes when purchasing something). People can also involuntarily trade within the framework (eg, buying licenses/permits from the state).

But this is becoming a bit of an aside to the question of immigration, so to return to the question of legal standing: If you lack a permit to engage in certain business, such as selling alcohol, we can conduct a voluntary exchange which you as the business man lack the legal standing to do. If I am purchasing as an illegal immigrant in the country where this transaction takes place, we have a voluntary exchange between two parties, both of whom lack the legal standing to make the transaction. The illegal immigrant from his presence, and the business man from his practice.

The economy, as it's discussed widely in the media, is the smokescreen for a nationalistic pride stoked by racial discontent. When most people talk about "freedom" they mean something very particular: freedom for me (or, maybe, for us--but not them).

You're quite wrong here. Only the term is new; what it describes has been festering for a long time now.

I haven't seen anyone (even Richard Spencer) suggesting putting minorities in chains (although I'm sure such talk exists), or anyone who is against various peoples, regardless of race/origin, not having freedom within their home countries. The problem is those who want to sneak into the US, or come openly with nothing in the way of advanced skills or abilities. No first world country needs to swell the ranks of their menial laborers or welfare recipients (particularly as automation advances). Shared cultural values are another issue but one which immediately gets attacked as a dog whistle.

 

[Einherjar86]

But this is becoming a bit of an aside to the question of immigration, so to return to the question of legal standing: If you lack a permit to engage in certain business, such as selling alcohol, we can conduct a voluntary exchange which you as the business man lack the legal standing to do. If I am purchasing as an illegal immigrant in the country where this transaction takes place, we have a voluntary exchange between two parties, both of whom lack the legal standing to make the transaction. The illegal immigrant from his presence, and the business man from his practice.

So once again, in this case regulation actually sanctions voluntarism. If it weren't for regulation, the voluntary action is null and void. This is just one example, but it speaks to a general theoretical principle of market regulation that goes unnoticed by most: i.e. that voluntarism, in fact, only comes into existence alongside regulation.

I'm not saying that liquor stores shouldn't have to have licenses. I am saying that when most people talk about deregulation, what they mean is they want fewer regulations that inhibit them and more regulations that inhibit others.

I haven't seen anyone (even Richard Spencer) suggesting putting minorities in chains (although I'm sure such talk exists), or anyone who is against various peoples, regardless of race/origin, not having freedom within their home countries. The problem is those who want to sneak into the US, or come openly with nothing in the way of advanced skills or abilities. No first world country needs to swell the ranks of their menial laborers or welfare recipients (particularly as automation advances). Shared cultural values are another issue but one which immediately gets attacked as a dog whistle.

Again, "putting minorities in chains" is the most literal instantiation of what I'm talking about. If the bar for meaningful racial bigotry is literal enslavement, then we have a way bigger problem.

At this point, our administration is actively seeking ways to deport those who have already immigrated legally, are documented, and possess valuable skills. Saying this is purely economically driven is a blatant lie. The country isn't being flooded by the unskilled and the homeless. It's being flooded by people who are taking work, despite the fact that you seem to think there are no jobs for them to have. If the question is whether an immigrant who comes here illegally has broken a law--i.e. that of coming here illegally--the answer is definitely yes; but committing one illegal act doesn't disqualify someone from the protections of other legal contracts.

Now, you seem to also be saying that citizenship is the legal be-all end-all of legal protection within a country. This is not true. If an immigrant comes here illegally and is assaulted and robbed, that immigrant can (and should) still be able to report the crime to the police (albeit, they probably wouldn't since they'd also be deported). They don't forfeit legal protection just because they're not a citizen, and they can still press charges even if they're here illegally. These protections go beyond citizenry. They're guaranteed to every person as human beings. Just because an immigrant is here illegally, it doesn't mean they lack legal standing to engage in work.

I don't see any reason why my sympathies should privilege unemployed Americans, many of whom wouldn't relocate to take a job that goes to an immigrant (documented or undocumented, legal or illegal) or make any effort to do that job in the first place. Said Americans are no more ambitious or hardworking than any given immigrant, so I don't see why the contingency of their citizenship should matter.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You're incorrect about "any common definition." Plenty of economics textbooks would offer similar definitions. That's the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics.

Provide just one economics textbook that wasn't written by a Marxist.

Modern conservative economics tends increasingly toward micro- because they glorify and sanctify the individual. This inevitably results in a very narrow and incomplete idea of market freedom and voluntarism, and how these values operates on more complex scales. You have to get a little abstract if you want to comprehend inhuman systems.

I don't think you even know what microeconomics and macroeconomics are if you think there's a basic ideological line dividing the two. Your explanation makes as about much sense as "Modern electrical engineering tends increasingly toward classical physics over nuclear physics because they glorify and sanctify the electron". Actually, that still makes far more sense because at least EEs in a purely quantitative amount study classical physics more. I can't think of a good analogy to explain how little sense that quote makes. In what way are macroeconomics even abstract? The concepts of inflation and unemployment are far from abstract and have been studied for ages.

Of course they can; but they're not dictating a "free market." That's your misdiagnosis.

How are they not when political powers explicitly use said powers to dictate the existence of free markets?

This entire conversation goes back to a post about voting, and how certain arguments sway voters. What happens historically is very different from what most people believe; and it's far more often what people believe that dictates how they vote. I'm discussing the ideas that circulate and get all confused with one another among a large demographic of voters. I'm not talking about what has actually happened over the past century.

I vote democrat not because I think it's going to dissolve national borders or promote a global marketplace (although I do think the latter is a vision worth pursuing). My concerns have to do with how racial sentiments get bound up with misguided beliefs about economics.

"You just don't get it, I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about theory which I define to mean all the things that haven't happened."

The current resurgence in nationalism has far more to do with race than it does with economic history. You seem to be unaware that most people know very little about economic history. They buy what conservative media outlets sell them about race, because that's easier to understand than the history of trade barriers in the Eurozone.

Laughably untrue. While there do exist non-economic components to nationalism and racial resentment, economic issues are not only frequently cited concerns ("They tuk r jeeerrbs" is a long-standing sentiment whether or not it's accurate, and research shows that for less-educated people it is), but economic troubles have through all of history been a great way of scapegoating ethnic groups. Billy Ray doesn't need to know economic history to know that he's getting a bum deal when only Paco can work in America and then travel back to Mexico where the standard of living is far lower. "Euroskepticism" is a movement that's been drawn primarily along non-racial national lines; native Europeans are white, but when open borders mean that less-skilled/educated populations are unable to manufacture goods as effectively as Germany, it draws resentment.

Which trade barriers in the Eurozone are you specifically talking about? While most free trade agreements tend to have some protectionist elements to prevent a total disruption of local economies, the net result is that they increase free trade, not decrease it.

Free for whom? Markets or individuals? That's the important question.

You wrote the post, you should know your own context.

Please know that I'm not advocating for some kind of dissolution of borders or rampant immigration into the country or even some kind of global anti-nationalist market. I'm merely saying that there is a knot of irreconcilable conflicts within the idea of "free market" that goes completely overlooked by many who are simultaneously eager for racial isolationism. I'm not accusing you and anyone else here of this (at the present moment, at least); I have a feeling that you and Dak probably know more about 20thc economics than your average voting republican or democrat. But still, you look at it from a very particular perspective that I don't share.

The economy, as it's discussed widely in the media, is the smokescreen for a nationalistic pride stoked by racial discontent. When most people talk about "freedom" they mean something very particular: freedom for me (or, maybe, for us--but not them).

You're quite wrong here. Only the term is new; what it describes has been festering for a long time now.

But there isn't. Free marketers do not correlate with open borders nearly as well as regulated/"fair" marketers. You are blatantly wrong and apparently haven't even been following American politics for longer than since Trump's inauguration.

 

[Einherjar86]

Provide just one economics textbook that wasn't written by a Marxist.

I don't think you even know what microeconomics and macroeconomics are if you think there's a basic ideological line dividing the two. Your explanation makes as about much sense as "Modern electrical engineering tends increasingly toward classical physics over nuclear physics because they glorify and sanctify the electron". Actually, that still makes far more sense because at least EEs in a purely quantitative amount study classical physics more. I can't think of a good analogy to explain how little sense that quote makes. In what way are macroeconomics even abstract? The concepts of inflation and unemployment are far from abstract and have been studied for ages.

Can you touch inflation? Can you taste it? Can you draw me a picture of it? Ooh, ooh, can you express it in musical notes? Oh that's right, you need to show me a fucking graph.

Microeconomics deals in individual behavior. It's tactile, it's intimate, it describes people's actions in immediate economic scenarios. Macroeconomics describes the effects and dynamics that emerge on a complex level. That's what's known as abstraction. There, you learned a new word.

And there is an ideological division between them. It has to do with how one conceives of economics perspectivally--i.e. pertaining to an individual's behavior, or pertaining to the emergent effects of complex systems. Those views entail very different values.

How are they not when political powers explicitly use said powers to dictate the existence of free markets?

They're not dictating the existence of free markets. This is kinda like playing whackamole.

"You just don't get it, I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about theory which I define to mean all the things that haven't happened."

Aw, you're cute with your little paraphrases. It's almost like you're not just a moderately evolved bot on the other side of a Turing Test.

I'm not going to keep telling you how you've misunderstood me, because you'll just keep accusing me of talking about theory; but that's what I'm trying to do. And if I'm trying to talk about theory and you keep refusing to do so, then we're not really having a discussion. It's just you whining because you're not getting your way.

 

[Dak]

So once again, in this case regulation actually sanctions voluntarism. If it weren't for regulation, the voluntary action is null and void. This is just one example, but it speaks to a general theoretical principle of market regulation that goes unnoticed by most: i.e. that voluntarism, in fact, only comes into existence alongside regulation.

Regulations may or may not sanction voluntary transaction. That doesn't render it null and void in the absence of regulation. I'd love to see you walk the dog on that line of thinking though.

I am saying that when most people talk about deregulation, what they mean is they want fewer regulations that inhibit them and more regulations that inhibit others.

Mostly true, but that's a complete aside.

Again, "putting minorities in chains" is the most literal instantiation of what I'm talking about. If the bar for meaningful racial bigotry is literal enslavement, then we have a way bigger problem.

At this point, our administration is actively seeking ways to deport those who have already immigrated legally, are documented, and possess valuable skills. Saying this is purely economically driven is a blatant lie. The country isn't being flooded by the unskilled and the homeless. It's being flooded by people who are taking work, despite the fact that you seem to think there are no jobs for them to have. If the question is whether an immigrant who comes here illegally has broken a law--i.e. that of coming here illegally--the answer is definitely yes; but committing one illegal act doesn't disqualify someone from the protections of other legal contracts.

Deporting legal immigrants is a poor move, but a fraction of the total immigration issue. I can't really respond to the rest of it because it doesn't correspond to the language I've used whatsoever. There are select very valuable legal immigrants. There are however many illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who have little and/or varying value immigrants. Securing the southern border is stopping illegal immigration of low value illegal immigrants. Banning immigration from countries like Yemen is banning legal immigration of questionable value immigrants. Believe it or not, many countries not in First World have terrible documentation, and there's no moral or ethical compulsion to turn a blind eye. Believing the word of the person showing up from Somalia that they are the self-described brain surgeon and have no Islamic sympathies is stupid.

If the question is whether an immigrant who comes here illegally has broken a law--i.e. that of coming here illegally--the answer is definitely yes; but committing one illegal act doesn't disqualify someone from the protections of other legal contracts.

Now, you seem to also be saying that citizenship is the legal be-all end-all of legal protection within a country. This is not true. If an immigrant comes here illegally and is assaulted and robbed, that immigrant can (and should) still be able to report the crime to the police (albeit, they probably wouldn't since they'd also be deported). They don't forfeit legal protection just because they're not a citizen, and they can still press charges even if they're here illegally. These protections go beyond citizenry. They're guaranteed to every person as human beings. Just because an immigrant is here illegally, it doesn't mean they lack legal standing to engage in work.

"Protections" are just another word for "rights", and rights are simply promises of the use of force towards certain ends. So what rights an illegal immigrant has in the US a simply a matter of US law.

I don't see any reason why my sympathies should privilege unemployed Americans, many of whom wouldn't relocate to take a job that goes to an immigrant (documented or undocumented, legal or illegal) or make any effort to do that job in the first place. Said Americans are no more ambitious or hardworking than any given immigrant, so I don't see why the contingency of their citizenship should matter.

Why should they move? You and many others support paying them to stay put and do nothing.

Can you touch inflation? Can you taste it? Can you draw me a picture of it? Ooh, ooh, can you express it in musical notes? Oh that's right, you need to show me a fucking graph.

Microeconomics deals in individual behavior. It's tactile, it's intimate, it describes people's actions in immediate economic scenarios. Macroeconomics describes the effects and dynamics that emerge on a complex level. That's what's known as abstraction. There, you learned a new word.

Mostly a quibble but: Micro-economics may describe individual behavior, but it's still abstract, and inflation can occur on a micro-level.

 

[CiG]

Amirite?

 

[CiG]

Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions.

Does “political correctness” really crush conservative speech on campus? The data suggests no.

10 people are on an island, 9 are left-wing, 1 is right-wing. 2 left-wingers are censored and 1 right-winger is censored. "The left are victims of censorship more than the right is."

After all, liberal professors outnumber conservatives nearly 12 to 1, study finds.