One can radicalize any idea. In the 1960s, the left radicalized the Civil Rights movement.
Civil Rights prior to radicalization was dramatically different than it was after the radicalization.
Before radicalization, the Republican Party was the driving force behind Civil Rights. More surprisingly, Republicans were the liberals, while Democrats did everything they could to cling to the racist status quo.
After the movement, Democrats completed the capture of the term liberal and successfully projected the label "conservative" on Republicans.
IMHO, the dueling Beck/Sharpton 8/28 rallies did a pretty good job showing the form of these two Civil Rights Movements. The Beck show had people standing around talking about high-minded ideals with a discussion of both the challenges and success of our nation ... with an emphasis on the successes.
Al Sharpton's march was a watered down peoples struggle against Beck.
For years I held the high minded civil rights movement that ran from the end of the Civil War to the Sixties was all well and good, but that it failed in achieving the goal of granting Civil Rights.
Since the classical liberal approach to civil rights failed and the radical approach seemed to work, I bought into the notion that the radical progressive methodology was a better approach to getting things done.
I finally realized that this appearance might just be an illusion. Republicans had been supporting civil rights for almost a century. The radical Democrats of the Jim Crow era were the ones blocking progress.
By the 50s, the Democrats realized that they were stuck with a losing issue, and made the decision to change their position. The Democrats executed the switch to take place in the Kennedy/Johnson administration.
The Civil Rights Movement was a matter of Democrats switching from radical racism to radical anti-racism. It was not the case of an enlightened radical movement in struggle with a regressive conservative movement.
A higher percentage of the Republicans framed as conservatives actually voted for the legislation.
I wrote a longer piece about why I am now of the opinion that the high-minded Beck style rally is the better approach to long term social progress. I also explained why the angry peoples struggle by Sharpton is paradoxical and counter productive.
The longer piece was hard to understand without understanding the radicalization process.
Tweet Button: Tweet
Pages
▼
Monday, August 30, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Visa Violations and Deportation
The visa system is a program that helps people travel around the world. A visa is a contract made between an individual and state that outlines the form of a stay. Visas tend to have an entry date and duration that sets an exit date.
It is good practice to have some leeway in enforcing exit dates on visas. However, there is no reason for us to incur brain damage about deporting people who overstayed a visa.
The people who are traveling on visa are in the process of traveling. We are not uprooting people who violate the conditions of visas since their agreement says that they are in the process of traveling.
This game where the shrill left projects racism and oppression on the system that allows greater mobility is absurd. Deporting a person for a visa violation is not the case of the punishment not fitting the crime, it is simply the fulfillment of a contract.
Without a visa system, every single border crossing must be treated as if the traveler is emigrating.
BTW, if the left really strongly believes the visa system is wrong, then we should change the visa laws. But we need to quit this game where the enforcement of visa is framed as an act of oppression.
It is good practice to have some leeway in enforcing exit dates on visas. However, there is no reason for us to incur brain damage about deporting people who overstayed a visa.
The people who are traveling on visa are in the process of traveling. We are not uprooting people who violate the conditions of visas since their agreement says that they are in the process of traveling.
This game where the shrill left projects racism and oppression on the system that allows greater mobility is absurd. Deporting a person for a visa violation is not the case of the punishment not fitting the crime, it is simply the fulfillment of a contract.
Without a visa system, every single border crossing must be treated as if the traveler is emigrating.
BTW, if the left really strongly believes the visa system is wrong, then we should change the visa laws. But we need to quit this game where the enforcement of visa is framed as an act of oppression.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Call for Entrepreneurs
I'd love to see the Medical Savings and Loan made a reality.
Right now happens to be one of those rare moments in history where people are looking to restore a free market.
The mathematics behind the Medical Savings and Loan is solid. The business model is strong. It has substantially less risk for the entrepreneur than insurance.
States seeking to nullify Obamacare are actively seeking alternative health care models to help justify nullification.
All the program needs is a few entrepreneurs with business connections who want to make a significant improvement in their community by helping people take control of their health care expenses.
To start a Medical Savings and Loan, one would need about 3000 working adults who are interested in self-financing their health care. A group with a score of small businesses would have about the right number of policy holders.
The Medicals Savings and Loan would replace costly insurance. A small business that goes this route is likely to see a 10% to 20% drop in the cost of health care. I imagine that there are companies that would like to see a reduction in their expenses.
Once the business model proves out, I suspect that millions will drop their insurance policies in favor of the Medical Savings and Loan.
In the last post, I brought up the point that a system of accounts distributed across multiple businesses would be more secure than a single monolythic company.
At this point, I am thinking more in terms of creating a network of businesses than in creating a single business. A network avoids the problem of a single point of failure.
What I want is a system where independent businesses franchise the term "Medical Savings and Loan."
Right now the Medical Savings and Loan is a golden opportunity looking for entrepreneurs. Sadly, my two years of blogging and tweeting on the issue has failed to result in a single contact.
If there is a entrepreneur living in a state seeking to nullify Obamacare and who could drum up a few businesses (about 3000 policy holders), I would love to hear from them.
Right now happens to be one of those rare moments in history where people are looking to restore a free market.
The mathematics behind the Medical Savings and Loan is solid. The business model is strong. It has substantially less risk for the entrepreneur than insurance.
States seeking to nullify Obamacare are actively seeking alternative health care models to help justify nullification.
All the program needs is a few entrepreneurs with business connections who want to make a significant improvement in their community by helping people take control of their health care expenses.
To start a Medical Savings and Loan, one would need about 3000 working adults who are interested in self-financing their health care. A group with a score of small businesses would have about the right number of policy holders.
The Medicals Savings and Loan would replace costly insurance. A small business that goes this route is likely to see a 10% to 20% drop in the cost of health care. I imagine that there are companies that would like to see a reduction in their expenses.
Once the business model proves out, I suspect that millions will drop their insurance policies in favor of the Medical Savings and Loan.
In the last post, I brought up the point that a system of accounts distributed across multiple businesses would be more secure than a single monolythic company.
At this point, I am thinking more in terms of creating a network of businesses than in creating a single business. A network avoids the problem of a single point of failure.
What I want is a system where independent businesses franchise the term "Medical Savings and Loan."
Right now the Medical Savings and Loan is a golden opportunity looking for entrepreneurs. Sadly, my two years of blogging and tweeting on the issue has failed to result in a single contact.
If there is a entrepreneur living in a state seeking to nullify Obamacare and who could drum up a few businesses (about 3000 policy holders), I would love to hear from them.
Avoiding Cloward and Pivens
The Cloward and Pivens Strategy is a method where one overwhelms social services with hopes that the disruption would afford an opportunity to grab power and affect change.
The Cloward and Pivens strategy is in vogue these days as people have finally come around to discussing the radical education of our current president.
I've been familiar with Alinsky, Cloward, Pivens and a whole slew of progressive thinkers for decades.
Figuring out how to over come Cloward and Pivens is the single biggest obstacle for a Medical Savings and Loan.
The MS&L helps people pay for their health care with a combination of health savings accounts and guaranteed loans. The money for the loans comes from the savings accounts. The loans are a money loser for the savings accounts. This loss is presented at the premium policy holders pay to have access to guaranteed loans.
Community organizers can overwhelm a Medical Savings and Loan by inducing people to take out large loans that they have no intention of repaying.
The surge in unpaid loans would dry up funds for the rest of the folks in the medical savings and loan and would lead to a business failure.
Community Organizers aren't the only ones aware of Cloward and Pivens. Insurance companies with political clout can engineer regulatory change in ways that make the market unpredictable for small insurance companies. Regulatory changes can allow them to off load high risk patients and structure the regulatory regime in ways that that swamp competitors.
The reason we see so little competition in the insurance market is because the big companies have been able to define the market in ways that drove out competition.
A primary reason that I never tried to set up a Medical Savings and Loan is that I am certain that any attempt to do so will be immediately faced with Cloward and Pivens style attacks.
My fears might be a bit exaggerated. Risks are relative. A medical savings and loaed is better prepared to stave off an attack than a similarly sized insurance company.
In pooled insurance, the insurance company owns the risk. With such a strategy, people place there money in a pool. A Cloward and Pivens attack exhaust the pool making the insurance company unviable. Policy holders simply see their insurance company collapse and they are left without coverage.
In the Medical Savings and Loan, the policy holders own the risk. The money for the loans coming out of the savings accounts in real time. A Cloward and Pivens attack would show in real time. The policy holders would see what is happening to their money and might confront the community organizers orchestrating the attack.
Assuming that knowledge is power, the policy holders of the MS&L would have more knowledge and might be more powerful.
It might be possible to structure the medical savings and loan in ways to reduce ill effects of attacks.
My original business model for the Medical Savings and Loan had one company maintaining both the savings accounts and loans. The single company business model creates a single point of failure.
The best way to solve this problem is to create a distributed model in which the savings and lending accounts are held by different corporate structures. The lending accounts could be held by a different company than than savings accounts.
The distributed model eliminates the single point of failure. Even if the medical savings and loan failed, the clients would have their money safe in a bank of their choosing.
The distributed model reduces the single points of failure. Of course, the Cloward and Pivens attack was designed as an organized systemic attack.
In the Cloward and Pivens attack against the mortgage industry, community organizers corralled a large number of banks into accepting questionable loans.
Although there is no way to stop a Cloward and Pivens attack, a distributed Medical Savings and Loan is better prepared to stave off the attack than a standard insurance company. The MS&L is relatively more secure than insurance.
TweetButton: Tweet
The Cloward and Pivens strategy is in vogue these days as people have finally come around to discussing the radical education of our current president.
I've been familiar with Alinsky, Cloward, Pivens and a whole slew of progressive thinkers for decades.
Figuring out how to over come Cloward and Pivens is the single biggest obstacle for a Medical Savings and Loan.
The MS&L helps people pay for their health care with a combination of health savings accounts and guaranteed loans. The money for the loans comes from the savings accounts. The loans are a money loser for the savings accounts. This loss is presented at the premium policy holders pay to have access to guaranteed loans.
Community organizers can overwhelm a Medical Savings and Loan by inducing people to take out large loans that they have no intention of repaying.
The surge in unpaid loans would dry up funds for the rest of the folks in the medical savings and loan and would lead to a business failure.
Community Organizers aren't the only ones aware of Cloward and Pivens. Insurance companies with political clout can engineer regulatory change in ways that make the market unpredictable for small insurance companies. Regulatory changes can allow them to off load high risk patients and structure the regulatory regime in ways that that swamp competitors.
The reason we see so little competition in the insurance market is because the big companies have been able to define the market in ways that drove out competition.
A primary reason that I never tried to set up a Medical Savings and Loan is that I am certain that any attempt to do so will be immediately faced with Cloward and Pivens style attacks.
My fears might be a bit exaggerated. Risks are relative. A medical savings and loaed is better prepared to stave off an attack than a similarly sized insurance company.
In pooled insurance, the insurance company owns the risk. With such a strategy, people place there money in a pool. A Cloward and Pivens attack exhaust the pool making the insurance company unviable. Policy holders simply see their insurance company collapse and they are left without coverage.
In the Medical Savings and Loan, the policy holders own the risk. The money for the loans coming out of the savings accounts in real time. A Cloward and Pivens attack would show in real time. The policy holders would see what is happening to their money and might confront the community organizers orchestrating the attack.
Assuming that knowledge is power, the policy holders of the MS&L would have more knowledge and might be more powerful.
It might be possible to structure the medical savings and loan in ways to reduce ill effects of attacks.
My original business model for the Medical Savings and Loan had one company maintaining both the savings accounts and loans. The single company business model creates a single point of failure.
The best way to solve this problem is to create a distributed model in which the savings and lending accounts are held by different corporate structures. The lending accounts could be held by a different company than than savings accounts.
The distributed model eliminates the single point of failure. Even if the medical savings and loan failed, the clients would have their money safe in a bank of their choosing.
The distributed model reduces the single points of failure. Of course, the Cloward and Pivens attack was designed as an organized systemic attack.
In the Cloward and Pivens attack against the mortgage industry, community organizers corralled a large number of banks into accepting questionable loans.
Although there is no way to stop a Cloward and Pivens attack, a distributed Medical Savings and Loan is better prepared to stave off the attack than a standard insurance company. The MS&L is relatively more secure than insurance.
TweetButton: Tweet
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Unanimous Consent
A talking point of the current election is that evil* Republicans have been staving off the recovery by placing secret holds on legislation. (*in school I was trained to always use purr words for Democrats and snarl words for Republicans).
In the video below, Evil Republican Jim DeMint describes the evil secret hold process.
According to DeMint, 94% of the legislation that pass the Senate goes through a process of unanimous consent. With unanimous consent, bills pass without going up for debate, amendments or a vote.
During the health-care and finance-reform nondebates, we learned that few representatives read the bills. One can only imagine how few of the unanimous consent bills get read.
On occasion, an uppity Senator will rock the boat and place a hold on a bill to read it. This is the evil secret hold process.
[gasp]
Of all Republican evilness, this reading of bills numbers among the evilest.
Republican evilness has its costs. The talking point is that since only 94% of bills were passed with unanimous consent, then six percent were held up.
Since the recovery didn't happen, it is obvious that delayed passing of bills is the cause.
Don't see the evilness? Because evil Republicans were secretly blocking bills, what should have been The Summer of Recovery turned into a prolonged recession.
I accept that Republicans are evil and Democrats are fluffy bundles of undistilled wonderfulness. So, I thought I would take this post in a different direction.
My first observation is that the flood of legislation flowing through unanimous consent shows that Democrats and Republicans are far more alike than different.
My second observation is that this issue highlights an important aspect of politics and dialectics. A bill will only make it to the floor for public scruntiny if the bill is controversial. This filter means that the public only sees bills when they contain conflicts.
This filtering process over emphasizes the conflicts and creates an illusions that misled the public.
The dialectics creates a system where we see great conflicts on the surface, while the underlying currents wash us to ruin.
The video is worth a view, but I need a conclusion.
So, in conclusion. Republicans are evil creatures who lock Barbie Dolls in boxes with GI Joe action figures to compromise the doll's virtue.
Experimental TweetButton: Tweet
In the video below, Evil Republican Jim DeMint describes the evil secret hold process.
According to DeMint, 94% of the legislation that pass the Senate goes through a process of unanimous consent. With unanimous consent, bills pass without going up for debate, amendments or a vote.
During the health-care and finance-reform nondebates, we learned that few representatives read the bills. One can only imagine how few of the unanimous consent bills get read.
On occasion, an uppity Senator will rock the boat and place a hold on a bill to read it. This is the evil secret hold process.
[gasp]
Of all Republican evilness, this reading of bills numbers among the evilest.
Republican evilness has its costs. The talking point is that since only 94% of bills were passed with unanimous consent, then six percent were held up.
Since the recovery didn't happen, it is obvious that delayed passing of bills is the cause.
Don't see the evilness? Because evil Republicans were secretly blocking bills, what should have been The Summer of Recovery turned into a prolonged recession.
I accept that Republicans are evil and Democrats are fluffy bundles of undistilled wonderfulness. So, I thought I would take this post in a different direction.
My first observation is that the flood of legislation flowing through unanimous consent shows that Democrats and Republicans are far more alike than different.
My second observation is that this issue highlights an important aspect of politics and dialectics. A bill will only make it to the floor for public scruntiny if the bill is controversial. This filter means that the public only sees bills when they contain conflicts.
This filtering process over emphasizes the conflicts and creates an illusions that misled the public.
The dialectics creates a system where we see great conflicts on the surface, while the underlying currents wash us to ruin.
The video is worth a view, but I need a conclusion.
So, in conclusion. Republicans are evil creatures who lock Barbie Dolls in boxes with GI Joe action figures to compromise the doll's virtue.
Experimental TweetButton: Tweet
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Is the Solution Political?
A few weeks back, when Congress was passing financial regulatory reform, I made the horrible mistake of trying to read the bill.
I was on page five hundred and something when Adobe Acrobat decided to download an update that froze my computer. As I was taking notes in Notebook, I lost half my notes and gave up on reading the rest of the 2000 page bill.
The part of the bill I read was primarily about installing political operatives at key positions in the financial system.
As far as I could tell, the driving assumption behind financial reform is the belief that the economy collapsed because Republicans are horrible creatures. Since Republicans are such horrible people, the key to prosperity is to place left leaning political operatives at key places in the financial system.
I am willing to buy that Republicans are horrible greedy people while Democrats are fluffy balls of wonderfulness. However, I hold that the shape of the economy is formed by the ideas of the society, and not the temperment of the leaders.
Both Democrats and the Bush era Neocons were feeding on the same set of technocratic ideas spewing forth from the same elite ivy league schools.
If it is true that our economy crashed because Republicans are horrible people, then an army of political operatives might help counter Republican evilness. If they assumption is wrong, then Obama's financial reform will probably just stifle economic growth.
The ad below by the DNC shows that the party will continue to drum the theme that our economic woes fall entirely on the horribleness of Republicans, and that prosperity comes from the fluffy-ball wonderfulness of Democrats. I happen to think the economy is driven by ideas and that this political narrative is a dead end.
I was on page five hundred and something when Adobe Acrobat decided to download an update that froze my computer. As I was taking notes in Notebook, I lost half my notes and gave up on reading the rest of the 2000 page bill.
The part of the bill I read was primarily about installing political operatives at key positions in the financial system.
As far as I could tell, the driving assumption behind financial reform is the belief that the economy collapsed because Republicans are horrible creatures. Since Republicans are such horrible people, the key to prosperity is to place left leaning political operatives at key places in the financial system.
I am willing to buy that Republicans are horrible greedy people while Democrats are fluffy balls of wonderfulness. However, I hold that the shape of the economy is formed by the ideas of the society, and not the temperment of the leaders.
Both Democrats and the Bush era Neocons were feeding on the same set of technocratic ideas spewing forth from the same elite ivy league schools.
If it is true that our economy crashed because Republicans are horrible people, then an army of political operatives might help counter Republican evilness. If they assumption is wrong, then Obama's financial reform will probably just stifle economic growth.
The ad below by the DNC shows that the party will continue to drum the theme that our economic woes fall entirely on the horribleness of Republicans, and that prosperity comes from the fluffy-ball wonderfulness of Democrats. I happen to think the economy is driven by ideas and that this political narrative is a dead end.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Repealing Obamacare will be Labeled Reactionary
ObamaCare was an extremely bad bill that will harm both the economy and health of the people in this nation. To save our nation, we must repeal this bad law.
Unfortunately, few Americans encounter the classical liberal vision of our nation's founders in their public school education and do not understand how people in a free society work together to take care of each other.
Attempts to repeal Obamacare will likely fail as the mainstream media and schools will frame effort as reactionary.
To successively repeal Obamacare, Conservatives must first restore the vision of a free market approach to health care.
This is what I've been trying to do with The Medical Savings and Loan.
Rather than paying medical expenses from a group pool, as is done with insurance, The Medical Savings and Loans pays for medical expenses with a combination of savings accounts, interest free loans and grants.
As health is an attribute of an individual, changing the perspective of health care from the group to the individual makes a lot of sense.
A large number of problems with the current employer based insurance system vanish when adopting the Medical Savings and Loan. The MS&L restores the pricing mechanism as people spend wisely when they are spending their own money. The problem of people losing insurance when they change jobs goes away as people will have real money in a medical savings account. The problem of pre-existing conditions diminishes as people with such conditions will get loans and grants.
If the same amount of money went into the Medical Savings and Loan as Insurance, one would see a dramatic improvement in the quality of care.
The difference between insurance and the medical savings and loan is largely one of perspective. Insurance tries to fund health care on a group level. The medical savings and loan sees people as individuals and funds medicine on an individual level.
Those seeking to repeal Obamacare could increase the likelihood of success if they simply adopted the vision of the medical savings and loan.
The Medical Savings and Loan is not a totalitarian vision. It is simply an alternative mechanism for funding health based on free market principles.
The real advantage of the Medical Savings and Loan is that it provides a structure for discussing the vision of health care in a free society.
Arguing for a vision would increase the chances of repealing Obamacare than the current debate which is fueled by reaction.
Another Tweet Button: Tweet
Unfortunately, few Americans encounter the classical liberal vision of our nation's founders in their public school education and do not understand how people in a free society work together to take care of each other.
Attempts to repeal Obamacare will likely fail as the mainstream media and schools will frame effort as reactionary.
To successively repeal Obamacare, Conservatives must first restore the vision of a free market approach to health care.
This is what I've been trying to do with The Medical Savings and Loan.
Rather than paying medical expenses from a group pool, as is done with insurance, The Medical Savings and Loans pays for medical expenses with a combination of savings accounts, interest free loans and grants.
As health is an attribute of an individual, changing the perspective of health care from the group to the individual makes a lot of sense.
A large number of problems with the current employer based insurance system vanish when adopting the Medical Savings and Loan. The MS&L restores the pricing mechanism as people spend wisely when they are spending their own money. The problem of people losing insurance when they change jobs goes away as people will have real money in a medical savings account. The problem of pre-existing conditions diminishes as people with such conditions will get loans and grants.
If the same amount of money went into the Medical Savings and Loan as Insurance, one would see a dramatic improvement in the quality of care.
The difference between insurance and the medical savings and loan is largely one of perspective. Insurance tries to fund health care on a group level. The medical savings and loan sees people as individuals and funds medicine on an individual level.
Those seeking to repeal Obamacare could increase the likelihood of success if they simply adopted the vision of the medical savings and loan.
The Medical Savings and Loan is not a totalitarian vision. It is simply an alternative mechanism for funding health based on free market principles.
The real advantage of the Medical Savings and Loan is that it provides a structure for discussing the vision of health care in a free society.
Arguing for a vision would increase the chances of repealing Obamacare than the current debate which is fueled by reaction.
Another Tweet Button: Tweet
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Nullification is Reactionary
The book Nullification by Tom Woods is a great read (buy at Overstock.com).
Thomas Jefferson advocated that states react to unconstitutional laws by declaring them null and refusing to enforce the law. The logic is that laws cannot contradict the Constitution; therefore, an unconstitutional law is not a law and is properly ignored.
By its nature, nullification is a reactionary process. The states react to an unconstitutional law by refusing to enforce it.
A reactionary effort like nullification may have worked in the early days of this nation when people still shared the visions of the US Founders.
We live in a day when people have lost the classical liberal vision of the US Founders. It is rare for students to even encounter the thoughts of our nation's founders in their public school education.
As mentioned in the last post, Conservatives can no longer depend on reaction. To preserve the American heritage, Conservatives must find ways to restore the founder's vision.
It is likely that the call to nullify Obamacare will simply create a lot of noise that will backfire on the tea party.
I believe the thinking behind nullification is correct. To preserve the balance of power between the Federal and States government, the states simply must have a way to reject bad legislation.
Rather than reacting, states should have a proactive means to assert their powers.
I've suggested that states use modern communication technologies to create a Network of Legislatures that can set constraints on Congress and directly nullify laws that tread on state's powers.
To have a long lasting effect on American politics, the tea party needs to transition from a reactionary to a visionary movement, the vision being the revolutionary vision of the US Founders that created a free society with a limited, multidimensional governance.
Experiment with TweetButton: Tweet
Thomas Jefferson advocated that states react to unconstitutional laws by declaring them null and refusing to enforce the law. The logic is that laws cannot contradict the Constitution; therefore, an unconstitutional law is not a law and is properly ignored.
By its nature, nullification is a reactionary process. The states react to an unconstitutional law by refusing to enforce it.
A reactionary effort like nullification may have worked in the early days of this nation when people still shared the visions of the US Founders.
We live in a day when people have lost the classical liberal vision of the US Founders. It is rare for students to even encounter the thoughts of our nation's founders in their public school education.
As mentioned in the last post, Conservatives can no longer depend on reaction. To preserve the American heritage, Conservatives must find ways to restore the founder's vision.
It is likely that the call to nullify Obamacare will simply create a lot of noise that will backfire on the tea party.
I believe the thinking behind nullification is correct. To preserve the balance of power between the Federal and States government, the states simply must have a way to reject bad legislation.
Rather than reacting, states should have a proactive means to assert their powers.
I've suggested that states use modern communication technologies to create a Network of Legislatures that can set constraints on Congress and directly nullify laws that tread on state's powers.
To have a long lasting effect on American politics, the tea party needs to transition from a reactionary to a visionary movement, the vision being the revolutionary vision of the US Founders that created a free society with a limited, multidimensional governance.
Experiment with TweetButton: Tweet
Monday, August 16, 2010
From Reactionary to Visionary
The Founders of the United States created multi-dimensional yet limited government that allowed genearations to pursue their own visions of freedom.
Since the signing of the Constitutions, freedom lovers have fallen into the pattern of defending their freedom by reacting to encroachments on their freedom. Sadly, this method of trying to defend freedom by reaction has become the hallmark of modern Conservatism.
The primary goal of a reactionary conservate is to preserve the status quo. Conservatives have a horrible record of defending compromises of the past.
Following the lead of Hegel and Marx, the left has developed a machine that herds society by tweaking the reactionary impulses of Conservatives.
Reactionaries are quite easy to manipulate. One need simply create a series of crises. One takes two steps forward during the crisis, followed by a step back in the reaction. Reactionary conservatives then accept this new stance in the set up for the next crisis.
The entire ideology of progressivism is built around the predictable nature of reactionary conservatives.
A case in point is insurance. Employer funded insurance was the creation of progressives. Today, conservatives line up like clowns to defend an institution that has destroyed the pricing mechanism within medicine and systematically centralizes industry and impoverishes the people.
Progressives can bank on the reactionary impulses of Conservatives to create a one way political process that systematically destroys individual freedom.
To make matters worse, the Left has captured the schools, and has managed to distort the vision of freedom to the point where students come out of schools seeing government as the solution and freedom as the problem.
This is problematic as governments tend to be the source of problems.
Because the right relies on reaction, not vision, the left has been able to project the cause of modern day problems onto the free market. Most of the people I know are absolutely convinced that it was the unregulated free market that caused banks to make bad loans and not the regulations established by Fannie, Freddie and Community Reinvestment act.
Conservatives can no long depend on reaction alone as a mechanism to defend freedom. To defend freedom, Conservatives must find a way re-invigorate the vision of freedom.
Experiment with TweetButton: Tweet
Since the signing of the Constitutions, freedom lovers have fallen into the pattern of defending their freedom by reacting to encroachments on their freedom. Sadly, this method of trying to defend freedom by reaction has become the hallmark of modern Conservatism.
The primary goal of a reactionary conservate is to preserve the status quo. Conservatives have a horrible record of defending compromises of the past.
Following the lead of Hegel and Marx, the left has developed a machine that herds society by tweaking the reactionary impulses of Conservatives.
Reactionaries are quite easy to manipulate. One need simply create a series of crises. One takes two steps forward during the crisis, followed by a step back in the reaction. Reactionary conservatives then accept this new stance in the set up for the next crisis.
The entire ideology of progressivism is built around the predictable nature of reactionary conservatives.
A case in point is insurance. Employer funded insurance was the creation of progressives. Today, conservatives line up like clowns to defend an institution that has destroyed the pricing mechanism within medicine and systematically centralizes industry and impoverishes the people.
Progressives can bank on the reactionary impulses of Conservatives to create a one way political process that systematically destroys individual freedom.
To make matters worse, the Left has captured the schools, and has managed to distort the vision of freedom to the point where students come out of schools seeing government as the solution and freedom as the problem.
This is problematic as governments tend to be the source of problems.
Because the right relies on reaction, not vision, the left has been able to project the cause of modern day problems onto the free market. Most of the people I know are absolutely convinced that it was the unregulated free market that caused banks to make bad loans and not the regulations established by Fannie, Freddie and Community Reinvestment act.
Conservatives can no long depend on reaction alone as a mechanism to defend freedom. To defend freedom, Conservatives must find a way re-invigorate the vision of freedom.
Experiment with TweetButton: Tweet
Sunday, August 15, 2010
A Network of Legislatures
In response to a tweet favoring limited government, I was asked the question: "and just what the limits should be"?
In response, I said a better question is who should determine the limits?
Recent history has shown that the Federal government is incapable of restraining itself. Each administration since Hoover has grabbed more and more power and created greater centralization of the economy and deeper systemic risks in the market.
Thomas Woods advocates Nullification. The argument is that any unconstitutional law is not a proper law and can be nullified by the individual states.
The problem is that we have strayed so far from the enumerated powers of the Constitution that we would fall into chaos if legislatures were to suddenly start cherry picking which laws applied to their states.
Despite the chaos that would ensue, we would still find our nation burdened with reams of unconstitutional laws burdening society.
To effectively place limits, we need something more proactive than nullification.
My proposal starts by looking at the original design of the Constitution. In this design the Senate was elected directly by the State Legislature.
Since the Senate was directly responsible to the states, it behaved a bit more like a network of legislatures.
Of course Senatorial elections within the state legislatures tended to be quite corrupt. The Seventeenth Amendment had Senators directly elected by the people. Direct elections broke the only effective control states had over the Federal Government.
I do not favor repealing the 17th amendment.
However, with modern communication technology, we are now able to do something the founders could not.
Rather than creating a Senate that worked like a network of legislatures, we can use the Internet to create a real time, fully functional network of legislatures.
If I had influence, I would have the States call a Constitutional Convention. This Convention would write an amendment that created a network of legislature that could set constraints or reject any law that falls outside the enumerate powers of the Constitution.
Note the network of legislatures would not be writing Federal Law. It simply has the ability to set constraints and reject laws.
The Founders of the United States thought that the States would play an active role in setting constraints on the Feds. The Seventeenth Amendment removed their most effective tool in accomplishing this goal.
Creating a network of legislatures would re-establish State legislatures as an entity that could counter abuses of Federal power.
I am experimenting with the new TweetButton. Press the button to retweet this post: Tweet
In response, I said a better question is who should determine the limits?
Recent history has shown that the Federal government is incapable of restraining itself. Each administration since Hoover has grabbed more and more power and created greater centralization of the economy and deeper systemic risks in the market.
Thomas Woods advocates Nullification. The argument is that any unconstitutional law is not a proper law and can be nullified by the individual states.
The problem is that we have strayed so far from the enumerated powers of the Constitution that we would fall into chaos if legislatures were to suddenly start cherry picking which laws applied to their states.
Despite the chaos that would ensue, we would still find our nation burdened with reams of unconstitutional laws burdening society.
To effectively place limits, we need something more proactive than nullification.
My proposal starts by looking at the original design of the Constitution. In this design the Senate was elected directly by the State Legislature.
Since the Senate was directly responsible to the states, it behaved a bit more like a network of legislatures.
Of course Senatorial elections within the state legislatures tended to be quite corrupt. The Seventeenth Amendment had Senators directly elected by the people. Direct elections broke the only effective control states had over the Federal Government.
I do not favor repealing the 17th amendment.
However, with modern communication technology, we are now able to do something the founders could not.
Rather than creating a Senate that worked like a network of legislatures, we can use the Internet to create a real time, fully functional network of legislatures.
If I had influence, I would have the States call a Constitutional Convention. This Convention would write an amendment that created a network of legislature that could set constraints or reject any law that falls outside the enumerate powers of the Constitution.
Note the network of legislatures would not be writing Federal Law. It simply has the ability to set constraints and reject laws.
The Founders of the United States thought that the States would play an active role in setting constraints on the Feds. The Seventeenth Amendment removed their most effective tool in accomplishing this goal.
Creating a network of legislatures would re-establish State legislatures as an entity that could counter abuses of Federal power.
I am experimenting with the new TweetButton. Press the button to retweet this post: Tweet
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Enabling Displacement
From 1831-1838, Andrew Jackson (America's first progressive president and father of the modern Democratic Party) set the Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, and Choctaw on a Trail of Tears from their native lands in the Southern States to the Indian Territories (present day Oklahoma). During this episode an estimated 46,000 people were displaced. Many thousands died on the forced march.
The Trail of Tears stands as one of the darkest episodes in American History.
I suspect that the horror of the Trail of Tears was one of the driving forces behind Section 1 of the 14th Amendment that stated: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The colonial tradition of driving indigenous people from their lands was deplorable. The Amendment reduced the possibility that the former slave holders of the South would suddenly force the former slaves from the land.
The Amendment was a wonderful stand against a historic atrocity. The problem is that it created a problematic immigration policy that states anyone who is able to cross our border and drop a child becomes a de facto US citizen.
This principle puts our nation out of sync with the world at large and creates a dangerous unilateral open border policy that can lead to abuse.
A unilateral open border can have the effect of enabling the very forced displacement that the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to avoid.
It is important to remember that the Trail of Tears happened precisely because Jackson had a place were he could push the people he sought to displace.
When one creates a destination for the displaced, one inadvertently supports the process of displacement. The term for this behavior is "enabling."
The blind acceptance of people who've been displaced around the world, enables rogue groups around the world to grab land by displacing people.
Looking at world history, we see that the displacement of people around the world did not stop after the passages of the Fourteenth Amendment. It appears to have escalated.
If one actually looks at the emigration to the United States in the following century, one finds much of it was coerced. For example, one of my Irish ancestors had the option of "emigrate or be hung." He saw emigration as preferable to swinging from a rope.
Some of the immigration is people looking for a better life. Yet, I find cases where people appear to have been coerced to leave their homes.
As we look south of our borders, we see a nation involved in terrible drug war that's claimed an estimated 28,000 lives in the last few years. Mass murder in Mexico is not a new thing. R.J. Rummel claims that 1.4 million people were killed in Mexico between 1900 and 1920. Other nations in South America have suffered similar violence.
When we look south of the border, we see great violence and people fleeing. The people committing the violence manage to take what's left behind.
There clearly is a big problem. Our current laws clearly are not working, and might be enabling some of behavior south of the border.
The government needs flexibility to change our immigration laws to address broader concerns of the region. Amending the Constitution to synchronize our immigration laws with the rest of the world would be in ordered.
Unfortunately talk about changing the naturalization clause is dominated by people who simply want the illegal aliens driven back to their home countries.
The real issue that we are facing is that the United States needs to find a way to coordinate its laws with the world to prevent the displacement of people. The naturalization clause is hindering this effort.
The Trail of Tears stands as one of the darkest episodes in American History.
I suspect that the horror of the Trail of Tears was one of the driving forces behind Section 1 of the 14th Amendment that stated: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The colonial tradition of driving indigenous people from their lands was deplorable. The Amendment reduced the possibility that the former slave holders of the South would suddenly force the former slaves from the land.
The Amendment was a wonderful stand against a historic atrocity. The problem is that it created a problematic immigration policy that states anyone who is able to cross our border and drop a child becomes a de facto US citizen.
This principle puts our nation out of sync with the world at large and creates a dangerous unilateral open border policy that can lead to abuse.
A unilateral open border can have the effect of enabling the very forced displacement that the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to avoid.
It is important to remember that the Trail of Tears happened precisely because Jackson had a place were he could push the people he sought to displace.
When one creates a destination for the displaced, one inadvertently supports the process of displacement. The term for this behavior is "enabling."
The blind acceptance of people who've been displaced around the world, enables rogue groups around the world to grab land by displacing people.
Looking at world history, we see that the displacement of people around the world did not stop after the passages of the Fourteenth Amendment. It appears to have escalated.
If one actually looks at the emigration to the United States in the following century, one finds much of it was coerced. For example, one of my Irish ancestors had the option of "emigrate or be hung." He saw emigration as preferable to swinging from a rope.
Current Debate
Today, the United States finds itself in crisis with some 12 million people who crossed our borders illegally.Some of the immigration is people looking for a better life. Yet, I find cases where people appear to have been coerced to leave their homes.
As we look south of our borders, we see a nation involved in terrible drug war that's claimed an estimated 28,000 lives in the last few years. Mass murder in Mexico is not a new thing. R.J. Rummel claims that 1.4 million people were killed in Mexico between 1900 and 1920. Other nations in South America have suffered similar violence.
When we look south of the border, we see great violence and people fleeing. The people committing the violence manage to take what's left behind.
There clearly is a big problem. Our current laws clearly are not working, and might be enabling some of behavior south of the border.
The government needs flexibility to change our immigration laws to address broader concerns of the region. Amending the Constitution to synchronize our immigration laws with the rest of the world would be in ordered.
Unfortunately talk about changing the naturalization clause is dominated by people who simply want the illegal aliens driven back to their home countries.
The real issue that we are facing is that the United States needs to find a way to coordinate its laws with the world to prevent the displacement of people. The naturalization clause is hindering this effort.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Textual Orientation
.noitatneiro lautxet tfel-thgir wen a htiw tnemeirepxe elpoep pleh ot margorp retupmoc a etorw I ,laudvidni denethgilne na gnieB .thgir ot tfel morf sdrow ees dna dednim desolc era snaciremA
.tey srekat yna dah t'nevah tub ,noitatneirO lautxeT tfeL-ot-thgiR denim-nepo wen a htiw teewT ot rettiwT no elpoep teg ot gniyrt neeb ev'I
.gnihtemos ro ,ciarbeH ni gnitirw ma I fi sa em ta erats yehT
.tey srekat yna dah t'nevah tub ,noitatneirO lautxeT tfeL-ot-thgiR denim-nepo wen a htiw teewT ot rettiwT no elpoep teg ot gniyrt neeb ev'I
.gnihtemos ro ,ciarbeH ni gnitirw ma I fi sa em ta erats yehT
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
International Statards for Naturalization
The writers of the 14th Amendment were dealing directly with groups that were trying to exclude former slaves and native Americans from citizenship (real racism) when they wrote:
So, if a person is born in land under US jurisdiction, that person becomes a de facto citizen of the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents or other considerations.
This clause puts the United States outside of international standards which consider the nationality of the parents.
Even worse, the law seems to create situations where people have children specifically to work the system. This is not a good thing in an overcrowded planet.
Our immigration laws not reciprocated throughout the world. So, section 1 of the 14th amendment creates a one way valve.
When the United States is reduced to third world status, walls will prevent emigration from the United States.
The 14th amendment was written in a time when the recorded US popularion was at 23 million. Current estimates of illegal immigration range from 12 to 20 million.
The amendment was also written in a time when people simply did not imagine the ease with which pregnant women could travel.
Apparently there is talk about amending the Constitution to address naturalization. Much of the talk is aimed at the illegal immigration problem.
Now, having a law that invites gaming of the system is bad. Passing a reactionary law to punish the children for illegal acts of the parents is worse.
So, before talking about amending the Constitution, one needs to take a step back and look and look at this problem from a wider perspective.
Cititizenship and naturalization are problems faced by all nations.
As this is an issue faced by all nations, citizenship and naturalization laws must be coordinated among nations.
Failure to work out immigration laws on an international level runs the risk of creating large populations of displaced peoples.
So, with these problems in mind. I would be supportive of an amendment that allows Congress to set immigration policies that fit within international standards.
Coordinated laws could improve mobility, and reduce displaced populations.
In contrast, a system where countries end up with one way valves create instability.
Putting this another way: Having our immigration policy set by the Constitution reduces our ability to work out immigration laws with other nations. The ability to negotiate immigration standards should help the world reduce problems with displaced people.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
So, if a person is born in land under US jurisdiction, that person becomes a de facto citizen of the United States regardless of the citizenship of the parents or other considerations.
This clause puts the United States outside of international standards which consider the nationality of the parents.
Even worse, the law seems to create situations where people have children specifically to work the system. This is not a good thing in an overcrowded planet.
Our immigration laws not reciprocated throughout the world. So, section 1 of the 14th amendment creates a one way valve.
When the United States is reduced to third world status, walls will prevent emigration from the United States.
The 14th amendment was written in a time when the recorded US popularion was at 23 million. Current estimates of illegal immigration range from 12 to 20 million.
The amendment was also written in a time when people simply did not imagine the ease with which pregnant women could travel.
Apparently there is talk about amending the Constitution to address naturalization. Much of the talk is aimed at the illegal immigration problem.
Now, having a law that invites gaming of the system is bad. Passing a reactionary law to punish the children for illegal acts of the parents is worse.
So, before talking about amending the Constitution, one needs to take a step back and look and look at this problem from a wider perspective.
Cititizenship and naturalization are problems faced by all nations.
As this is an issue faced by all nations, citizenship and naturalization laws must be coordinated among nations.
Failure to work out immigration laws on an international level runs the risk of creating large populations of displaced peoples.
So, with these problems in mind. I would be supportive of an amendment that allows Congress to set immigration policies that fit within international standards.
Coordinated laws could improve mobility, and reduce displaced populations.
In contrast, a system where countries end up with one way valves create instability.
Putting this another way: Having our immigration policy set by the Constitution reduces our ability to work out immigration laws with other nations. The ability to negotiate immigration standards should help the world reduce problems with displaced people.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
A Free Proletariat
One of the greatest ironies of history is that the free market, that Marx and the professoriat despise, did better by the proletariat (the working class) than any other system.
Ironically, if one adopts the idea that "capitalism" is a corruption of the free market and read Das Kapital, one realizes that best path to progress is to rid ourselves of the corruption of the free market (short selling, mortgages, etc.) and to embrace a human centric free market.
The worst path is to follow the centralized model favored by Marx and professoriat.
Ironically, if one adopts the idea that "capitalism" is a corruption of the free market and read Das Kapital, one realizes that best path to progress is to rid ourselves of the corruption of the free market (short selling, mortgages, etc.) and to embrace a human centric free market.
The worst path is to follow the centralized model favored by Marx and professoriat.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Undermining a Society with Critical Thinking
Howard Zinn (August 24, 1922 – January 27, 2010) was, hands down, the most influential history textbook writer of the last half century. I could remember members of the professoriat falling into fits of ecstasy as they discussed Zinn's framing of history.
There would be discussions about how to use Zinn's work to propagate the radical left world view.
Zinn's gift to the world ofpropaganda history was a particular form of critical thinking that would draw students squarely into resonating debates on the faults of the Free Market and inequities of American History ... with the implication that there's just gotta be something better.
Well, a Freedom of Information Act Request just released the FBI's investigation of Zinn.
It appears he was a member of the Communist Party of the USA as well as a radical activist for left wing causes.
All of the praise I heard about Zinn was how he was a master of critical thinking.
It was actually by reading works by Zinn that I came to the epiphany about the nature of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a valuable tool for self reflection. By using critical thinking an individual (or even a group) can uproot contradictions and broaden their thinking.
However, critical thinking only works in forms of introspection. One can apply critical thinking to one's own ideas, but one cannot apply critical thinking to another.
Applying critical thinking to another person or group is, and should be recognized as, criticism.
I am not hip on Obama, Iran, Joseph Smith, Socialism and a bunch of other issues. When I discuss these issues, I am not engaged in critical thinking, I am engaged in criticism.
I strongly believe in the Free Market. When I engage in deep thought about the free market, I usually am in a critical thinking mode.
During the financial crisis, I did a great deal of soul searching about things like short selling and derivatives. This thinking led me to reject short selling and deratives.
It would be disingenuous of me to stand in a group of free market loving day traders and engage in critical thinking about the merits of short selling. I rejected the idea and now criticize it.
Masking criticism as critical thinking is a blatant form of lying.
As key distinction between critical thinking and criticism is the intent of the thinker it is impossible to look at any given piece of writing to determine if it was the product of critical thinking or just a form of criticism.
For that matter, it is not simply the thinking of the writer that matters, but the thinking of publishers and distributors that matter. For example, one might find a wonderful piece of critical thinking in a soldier's diary. A publisher might see this as a club to bludgeon an enemy and distribute it. The intension of the publisher turns the critical thinking into a criticism.
Of course, we can't read other's intensions and should simply accept that all critical published materials are in fact criticisms.
There is nothing wrong with criticism. A well written criticism might even encourage a person to engage in introspective critical thinking.
The purpose of critical thinking skill is to help people engage in the pursuit of truth. The manipulative approach to history that has become popular hampers the pursuit of truth.
As for Zinn, Zinn's new think about history has been the prevailing style of think for decades. I wish the world would notice that the world has become much more divisive in their thinking as a result of Zinn's work.
The FBI file opens the possibility that Zinn was in fact working with groups seeking to divide and undermine our nation.
But, I have not been ordained with magical powers to see the mighty Zinn's intentions. I don't like his spin on history and openly criticize the propagandist. I hope that future historians recognize the dangers that feigned critical thinking can cause.
There would be discussions about how to use Zinn's work to propagate the radical left world view.
Zinn's gift to the world of
Well, a Freedom of Information Act Request just released the FBI's investigation of Zinn.
It appears he was a member of the Communist Party of the USA as well as a radical activist for left wing causes.
All of the praise I heard about Zinn was how he was a master of critical thinking.
It was actually by reading works by Zinn that I came to the epiphany about the nature of critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a valuable tool for self reflection. By using critical thinking an individual (or even a group) can uproot contradictions and broaden their thinking.
However, critical thinking only works in forms of introspection. One can apply critical thinking to one's own ideas, but one cannot apply critical thinking to another.
Applying critical thinking to another person or group is, and should be recognized as, criticism.
I am not hip on Obama, Iran, Joseph Smith, Socialism and a bunch of other issues. When I discuss these issues, I am not engaged in critical thinking, I am engaged in criticism.
I strongly believe in the Free Market. When I engage in deep thought about the free market, I usually am in a critical thinking mode.
During the financial crisis, I did a great deal of soul searching about things like short selling and derivatives. This thinking led me to reject short selling and deratives.
It would be disingenuous of me to stand in a group of free market loving day traders and engage in critical thinking about the merits of short selling. I rejected the idea and now criticize it.
Masking criticism as critical thinking is a blatant form of lying.
As key distinction between critical thinking and criticism is the intent of the thinker it is impossible to look at any given piece of writing to determine if it was the product of critical thinking or just a form of criticism.
For that matter, it is not simply the thinking of the writer that matters, but the thinking of publishers and distributors that matter. For example, one might find a wonderful piece of critical thinking in a soldier's diary. A publisher might see this as a club to bludgeon an enemy and distribute it. The intension of the publisher turns the critical thinking into a criticism.
Of course, we can't read other's intensions and should simply accept that all critical published materials are in fact criticisms.
There is nothing wrong with criticism. A well written criticism might even encourage a person to engage in introspective critical thinking.
The purpose of critical thinking skill is to help people engage in the pursuit of truth. The manipulative approach to history that has become popular hampers the pursuit of truth.
As for Zinn, Zinn's new think about history has been the prevailing style of think for decades. I wish the world would notice that the world has become much more divisive in their thinking as a result of Zinn's work.
The FBI file opens the possibility that Zinn was in fact working with groups seeking to divide and undermine our nation.
But, I have not been ordained with magical powers to see the mighty Zinn's intentions. I don't like his spin on history and openly criticize the propagandist. I hope that future historians recognize the dangers that feigned critical thinking can cause.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Progressives and the Neo Colonization of America
Back when I was a starry-eyed progressive, my professors spoke glowingly of the desire to use immigration to fundamentally change America.
Progressives saw free public school education as a primary draw for illegal immigration. Openly encouraging illegal immigration is a big plus for schools. Public schools get upward to $100,000 for each child in their clutches (If you spend an average of $10k per year per child for K-12 education, that's over $100k.)
The greatest thing about supporting illegal immigration is that it lets the groups benefiting from the human trade to beam with self-righteousness.
The left makes so much money from the human trade that shipping a few hundred people to protest in Arizona is but an incidental expense.
I love immigrants and in the international community in America. Yet, I hate watching our elite political class exploit and use people for financial and political gains.
Recalling my experience with the progressive professoriat that sought to radically change America by encouraging illegal immigration. Really negative experiences with the power structure of the public schools and now this crazy game where a president campaigning for fundamental change openly thwarts enforcement of immigration laws, I can't help but wonder if the left is engaged in an effort of neo-colonization.
The classical thinker learned that any virtue pushed to excess is a vice. When immigration is driven by free people seeking to better their lot, one creates a positive feedback mechanism that improves the quality of life for all.
However, when immigration is driven by a political elite for political ends, the virtuous immigration degenerates into a vice. People trafficked about for the benefit of an empowered elite is colonization and is the antithesis of the American Way.
Progressives saw free public school education as a primary draw for illegal immigration. Openly encouraging illegal immigration is a big plus for schools. Public schools get upward to $100,000 for each child in their clutches (If you spend an average of $10k per year per child for K-12 education, that's over $100k.)
The greatest thing about supporting illegal immigration is that it lets the groups benefiting from the human trade to beam with self-righteousness.
The left makes so much money from the human trade that shipping a few hundred people to protest in Arizona is but an incidental expense.
I love immigrants and in the international community in America. Yet, I hate watching our elite political class exploit and use people for financial and political gains.
Recalling my experience with the progressive professoriat that sought to radically change America by encouraging illegal immigration. Really negative experiences with the power structure of the public schools and now this crazy game where a president campaigning for fundamental change openly thwarts enforcement of immigration laws, I can't help but wonder if the left is engaged in an effort of neo-colonization.
The classical thinker learned that any virtue pushed to excess is a vice. When immigration is driven by free people seeking to better their lot, one creates a positive feedback mechanism that improves the quality of life for all.
However, when immigration is driven by a political elite for political ends, the virtuous immigration degenerates into a vice. People trafficked about for the benefit of an empowered elite is colonization and is the antithesis of the American Way.