Zur Navigation | Zum Inhalt
     
 
Welcome to the Taking The Gloves Off
What Immigration Problem?
User Rating: / 0
Mamblog Section - Immigration
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Friday, 11 November 2011
What Immigration Problem? 
by Sheldon Richman
 
Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia have each enacted stringent laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration. Before saying more, let’s be clear about the alleged problem. What is an “illegal immigrant”? It’s simply a person — possessing natural rights, mind you — who comes to the United States without the permission of the U.S. government. Now isn’t it curious that in this country, which began in rebellion against and secession from an empire, people are upset about other people moving around without government permission? In revolutionary times the smuggler of goods was a hero, and the customs agent was a villain. If we were true to the best parts of our heritage today the “illegal” would be a hero, and the border agent would be a villain.
 
This shows how far we have slipped from America’s substantially libertarian origins. This is really quite sad.
 
Imagine if we Americans needed government permission to move from state to state. We’d be appalled at the hassle, not to mention the grave interference with our freedom. Would we put up with it? I hope not.
 
Then what is the justification for having an elaborate, presumptuous, tax-financed bureaucracy whose purpose is to determine who may live in this country? Rights belong to all human beings, not just to Americans. Note that the Constitution expressly protects the rights of persons, not just those of American citizens.
 
But, we are told, a country is not a country without secure borders. Why? This premise goes unexamined.
 
A country is defined by its traditions and attitudes rather than by its border checkpoints and armed guards. It is disheartening to hear people claim to believe that America is not synonymous with government and yet favor harsh measures to “secure our border” and stop free migration.
 
All the economic arguments for stemming the flow of immigrants fall when examined even casually. The nativists can’t quite get their story straight. Are the newcomers ambitious go-getters trying to “take our jobs,” or are they freeloaders planning to collect welfare? Those who are afraid of the former fail to understand that people not only produce when they hold jobs, but also consume. Newcomers expand the market and the division of labor, which Adam Smith taught us is the path to higher living standards. Some opponents of immigration bring up the current high unemployment as an objection. But that is purely a government-produced phenomenon, and it has nothing to do with immigrants. Seriously, scapegoating does not become us.
 
As for any government-financed services that immigrants might use, let’s not forget that they also pay a good deal in taxes. There’s no reason to think they are a net drain on the welfare state.
 
But that is really beside the point. If we don’t want people living off the taxpayers — and this should apply to American citizens as well — we should transfer welfare services to private charity and the free market. There is no good reason for government — the essence of which is physical force — to be running schools and hospitals, which are the tax-financed facilities most likely to be used by immigrants. I really see no moral difference between a citizen and a noncitizen taking advantage of a government program. The most objectionable aspect of government largess is not whoaccepts it but how the politicians obtain the resources that they then distribute. Taxation is robbery.
 
Finally, there is a good deal of worry on the Right these days that immigration is making “white America” a thing of the past. Those who hold this view say earlier immigration presented little concern because most newcomers were European and could assimilate into American culture. But this is selective memory in the first degree: virtually every group from Europe was at one time spoken of in the same degrading and alarmist terms as are today’s Latino and Muslim immigrants. In fact, as Thaddeus Russell documents in his fascinating book, A Renegade History of the United States, almost every European immigrant group — including Italians, Irishmen, Poles, and Jews — were initially not considered to be white! As a result, many of the new immigrants felt close to blacks and African-American culture. Only with the passage of time were they admitted into the ranks of the white race by the establishment.
 
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
 
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (14) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 334

 
Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Harm the Cause of Freedom
User Rating: / 0
Mamblog Section - Economics and Financial Services
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Saturday, 05 November 2011
Opponents of Occupy Wall Street Harm the Cause of Freedom 
by Sheldon Richman
 
After many weeks, Occupy Wall Street and its kindred demonstrations around the country are still a source of headline controversy — even aside from the police manhandling of protesters. And yet the disparate coalition of discontent with contemporary America has not coalesced around a single set of aims. Unfortunately, the loudest voices call for more government management of the economy, when it is precisely that which got us into the mess we have yet to dig out from.
 
The protesters don’t seem to understand that the great meltdown which began in 2008 grew out of joint management of the finance and housing industries by several government agencies — including the Federal Reserve System — and the captains of those industries themselves. Contrary to popular misconception, this was no case of rampant deregulation, but rather one of rampant regulatory privilege .. Avoiding the debacle would have required not only actual deregulation but also, and crucially, “de-privilegization.” Every device to protect banks from their own folly — from deposit insurance to implicit guarantees to the Fed’s promise of emergency cash injections — has contributed to the misery that sent the protesters into the street.
 
Oddly, Wall Street’s critics give little attention to the constellation of privileges that were championed by housing and finance for years. Instead, they believe that justice lies in more vigorous government regulation. The problems here are that regulatory agencies invariably end up serving the regulated industries, which sometimes write their own rules, and that even regulators with the best of intentions can’t know what they would need to know to serve the public’s true interest. So they are bound to do more harm than good.
 
The protesters need to understand that a free economy is not an unregulated economy — far from it. Market forces, when not impeded by politicians and bureaucrats serving special interests — are the toughest regulators, punishing firms that waste resources, destroy value, and fail to serve consumers.
 
In other words, the authors and administrators of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation regime are the enemies, not the friends, of justice for the 99 percent. Who will be in a better position to participate in the rule writing: the average person or the head of a big bank? Demanding more power for government is equivalent to demanding more privileges for Wall Street. When will the protesters realize that?
 
Another source of confusion hangs over Occupy Wall Street, and it comes from many critics of the protests. It is a sad spectacle to see self-styled advocates of the free market come to Wall Street’s defense, as though it were the natural product of spontaneous market forces rather than a creature of the corporate-state partnership that has characterized the American economy for generations.
 
When people who claim to favor free markets rally to Wall Street’s defense, seemingly oblivious to the poisonous corporatist partnership, they harm the cause of freedom by encouraging the protesters to conflate freedom with probusiness statism. Free-marketers should not be protecting Wall Street from criticism; rather they should be educating the protest movement about the true nature of the problem.
 
How can Occupy Wall Street activists be taught that their real adversary is the corporate state, not free markets, if defenders of Wall Street talk as though we have free markets today? (That message is subtle, but it’s coming through just the same.)
 
Part of Occupy Wall Street’s complaints concerns income inequality, specifically the growing gap between the top 1 percent of income earners and everyone else. Income statistics are tricky, and much is hidden by the fact that people move to and from the various income levels all the time. Moreover, the influx of poor immigrants can depress the median income even though no one is worse off. Nevertheless, it is true that a few people in banking and housing made and held onto fabulous fortunes thanks to government — that is, taxpayer — help.
 
In other words, America’s skewed income configuration cannot have been the result of purely free exchange. Yet many advocates of a free market respond defensively to any criticism of income inequality as though it is their cherished system of natural liberty that is under assault. But we have had no such system, and free marketers set back the cause whenever they imply otherwise.
 
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (13) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 320

 
Drone Warfare Is Fraught with Danger
User Rating: / 0
Mamblog Section - Foreign Policy, Military and War
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Monday, 24 October 2011
Drone Warfare Is Fraught with Danger 
by Sheldon Richman
 
One can understand why Libyans would celebrate the end of the Qaddafi dictatorship. But the American people should nonetheless be concerned about what the U.S. government did in North Africa.
 
On the day Qaddafi was killed, the New York Times reported that “the death ... is the latest victory for a new American approach to war: few if any troops on the ground, the heavy use of air power, including drones, and, at least in the case of Libya, a reliance on allies.” The Times noted that this minimalist strategy was not in favor a few months ago.
But the last six months have brought a string of successes. In May, American commandos killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. In August, Tripoli fell, and Colonel Qaddafi fled. In September, an American drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a top Qaeda operative and propagandist, in Yemen. And on Thursday, people were digesting images of the bloodied body of Colonel Qaddafi, an oppressive strongman who spent decades flaunting his pariah status.
The danger is that President Obama and the war party will be further emboldened now that they apparently have found an approach to war that minimizes if not eliminates the risk of American casualties and keeps a lid on financial costs. The last thing the American people need is a government that feels it can intervene costlessly anywhere in the world. Empires areexpensive, but the budgetary consideration was never the most important reason for opposing America’s imperial policies. It is grossly self-centered to think only of the potential for American casualties when the U.S. government intervenes in foreign conflicts. We should be just as concerned that the lives of other people are threatened.
 
Thus, the fact that America can fight foreign wars “safely” with drones piloted from far away should be of no comfort to the American people. Drones invariably kill innocent people, who have the same rights as Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact that the U.S. government menaces foreign populations who present no threat to us should offend all decent people.
 
Americans have wearied of drawn-out, expensive wars waged by thousands of U.S. ground troops. One gets the impression that the policy elite is now delighted it has found a way of making war that avoids precisely what the public most abhors. But such interventions are nonetheless dangerous. Dropping bombs on people tends to make them vengeful. Drone warfare over Yemen and Somalia has radicalized individuals there (and here), heightening the threat of terrorism against Americans.
 
Thus, the apparent safety of the new form of intervention may be misleading.
 
Moreover, no one can be sure that the minimalist tactic won’t lead to bigger commitments, because the U.S. government could be drawn into conflicts that flare out of control. The Libya matter is not over yet. If chaos erupts there, as it did in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, can we be sure Obama won’t send in ground troops to restore order? Ominously, he also recently sent a so-far-small force into central Africa against the Lord’s Resistance Army. Who knows where that will lead?
 
The danger lurking in the minimalist strategy is hubris — the pretence of knowledge. When embarking on an intervention, no one knows how things will end up. Randolph Bourne, who coined the phrase, “War is the health of the state,” also said, “If it is a question of controlling war, it is difficult to see how the child on the back of a mad elephant is to be any more effective in stopping the beast than is the child who tries to stop him from the ground.” That Libya “went well” is no reason to feel good about this sort of intervention.
 
Americans live under a government in which the president can unilaterally and arbitrarily inflict lethal force on foreign countries, unchecked by Congress or the courts. He can order the assassination even of American citizens without indictment, charge, or trial. Nothing could more flagrantly violate the principle of checks and balances, which supposedly distinguishes the American constitutional system from other forms of government. When one contemplates the autocratic war-making power today held by the president, it is hard to conclude other than that America is a rogue state.
 
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (11) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 280

 
Wall Street Couldn't Have Done It Alone
User Rating: / 0
Mamblog Section - Economics and Financial Services
Written by Sheldon Richman   
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Wall Street Couldn't Have Done It Alone 
by Sheldon Richman
 
The spreading Occupy Wall Street movement, despite a vague worldview and agenda, properly senses that something is dreadfully wrong in America. The protesters vent their anger at the big financial institutions in New York’s money district (as well as other big cities) for the housing and financial bubble, the resulting Great Recession, the virtual nonrecovery, the threat of a second recession, and the long-term unemployment — which averages over 9 percent but hits certain groups and areas far more severely than others.
 
The protest is understandable, even laudable, but there’s something the protesters need to know:
 
Wall Street couldn’t have done it alone. The protesters’ wrath should also be directed at the national government and its central bank, the Federal Reserve System, because it took the government or the Fed (or both) to
 
  • create barriers to entry, for the purpose of sheltering existing banks from competition and radical innovation
  • then regulate for the benefit of the privileged industry
  • issue artificially cheap, economy-distorting credit in order to, among other things, give banks incentives to make shaky but profitable mortgage loans (and also to grease the war machine through deficit spending)
  • make it lucrative for banks — and their bonus-collecting executives — to bundle thousands of shaky mortgages into securities and other derivatives, knowing that a government-licensed rating cartel would score them AAA and that government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other companies would buy them
  • insure deposits so that individual depositors had no need to worry about the risks their banks might be taking
  • inflate an unsustainable housing bubble by the foregoing and other methods, enticing people to foolishly overinvest in real estate
  • work closely with lending companies to establish a variety of programs designed to lure people with few resources or bad credit into buying houses they can’t afford
  • attract workers to the home-construction bubble, setting them up for long-term unemployment when the bubble inevitably burst
  • implicitly guarantee big financial companies and their creditors that if they got into trouble they would be rescued
  • compel the taxpayers to bail out those companies and creditors when the roof finally did fall in.
 
No bank or group of banks could do these things on its own in a freed market. It requires a government–Wall Street partnership — the corporate state — to create such misery and exploitation. The corporate state is nothing new in American history. Politicians across the spectrum have long instituted policies that benefit big banks and big business generally, and they have dressed those policies either in free-market (Republicans) or progressive (Democrats) rhetoric to lull the people into acquiescence. The result is an overgrown government that bestows privileges on the well-connected and then regulates on their behalf. The rest of the population pays and suffers.
 
Many participating in Occupy Wall Street sense this, but they need sound economic theory and economic history to see fully who the adversary is. Wall Street couldn’t have done it alone. Greed without political power is boorish. Greed with political power is dangerous.
 
So demonstrators, you are right. Something is dreadfully wrong. But your list of culprits is far from complete. So go ahead and protest outside Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. But also spend time (as a few already have) outside the White House, the Fed, the Treasury, and the Capitol Building. Together they are responsible for our current economic woes. These are the entities that control our fate and over which we have no real say. This is not how America was supposed to be. It’s time for things to change.
 
The freed market — embodying individual freedom and autonomy, voluntary social cooperation, and peace — is the alternative to the corporate welfare-warfare system you properly despise. All you have to do is discover it.
 
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org ) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (12) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 289

 
Again, With The Male vs. Female Survivors Thing...Ugh
User Rating: / 1
Mamblog Section - Rape, Sexual Assault and Abuse
Written by James Landrith   
Friday, 23 September 2011

saiseix on Slut Walks, victim blaming:

I have been reading several articles on victim blaming, as per the up-coming local Slut Walk, and am extremely disappointed at the staggering amounts of victim blaming and rape apologizing in the comment sections.

Over and over again I read statements such as “I think a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants… but she still has to use common sense!” and “Don’t get drunk and put yourself in dangerous situations!” While these may seem well meaning, they both imply victim blaming, as we are all taught in society. We are told over and over again what a woman should wear, how she should behave in order to prevent being attacked. How about we spend even an equal amout of time and energy teaching somthting that REALLY should be common sense – DON’T ATTACK SOMEONE.

I abhor victim-blaming in all forms.  Blame shifting, excuse making, denial, mockery and minimization are all disgusting practices that are thrown in the faces of rape survivors.  Good job on sounding off.  The Slutwalks have started a very important conversation that needs to continue and expand in multiple directions.

However, I have to quibble with regard to the comments about male rape survivors.  

You said, "I want to know how many people would say a man was asking to be attacked because of the way he looked."  That is an interesting, if offensive question, from the perspective an actual male rape survivor.  The way a man looks is VERY MUCH a tool of rape denial and minimization used by both men AND women when they meet a male rape survivor.  While a man's attire is less likely to be analyzed, his physical fitness, size, aggressive/submissive presence, perceived sexual orientation and masculinity are all weapons to be wielded in their rape denial and mockery.  

It happens.  It is no less ugly than that which happens to women.  That is, of course, when we aren't turned into a punchline again and again and again.  Perhaps you didn't know that?

You said, "I wonder how many male rape victims are told they were “asking for it”."  A LOT of us are told that.  I was drugged, raped and then blackmailed into silence by a female friend of a friend.

I was alone with a woman I didn't know well.  I was asking for it.

I didn't say no to the drinks she bought me.  I was asking for it.

I didn't fight back with physical violence after the drugs wore off and the blackmail and threats and screaming at me began.  I was asking for it.

I had an erection.  I was asking for it.

I didn't report it to the police.  I was asking for it.

I support the Slutwalks that have been taking place worldwide and I speak out regularly as a survivor and trainer.  What I cannot support are minimizations based on the gender of a survivor.  It seems to me that you have absolutely no idea what male rape survivors deal with on a regular basis.  Let me clue you in - it does not differ as much as you may think.  We get mocked.  We get treated to rape denial, victim blaming, shaming and all manner of disgusting minimizations.  Sound familiar? 

Rather than alienating male rape survivors by making it seem like we have it easy compared to women (the vast majority of whom, like men, have NOT been raped), you should re-examine this topic and view us as the allies we have been for many years to our sister survivors - even while being told that we don't deserve access to PUBLICLY funded crisis centres that we help to keep afloat with our own tax money.

We can be strong allies or we can be minimized and alienated.  Again.  It is time for those who truly care to make a choice.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (54) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 810

Last Updated ( Friday, 23 September 2011 )
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 13 - 17 of 3102
 
     
Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
Ring Owner: Thomas Knapp Site: Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Free Joomla! Templates provided by funky-visions.de
Template modding by Sven Brier