Comments on: Immigration Promotes Capitalism (Show 010)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 23 May 2007 01:45:52 +0000

Congress has a thorn in its paw because Bush doesn’t acknowledge them in a way that they’d like – though he isn’t breaking any laws. As such, Bush (who any right-minded [no pun intended] must have supported over Kerry, irregardless of Peikoff’s ideas) is getting sortof a cold shoulder from Congress, and will probably continue to do so until his term is over.

All that needs to be said has been said by a previous poster, however:

“I understand that we do not currently have laissez-faire capitalism, and perhaps open borders isnâ€™t step one to obtaining that. But the point is that itâ€™s the government that is causing such problems.”

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 23 May 2007 01:20:01 +0000

I haven’t heard the most recent podcast, but Brandon is a brilliant debater.

I do feel the need to point out that I can’t imagine Ayn Rand endorsing “taking one for the team,” given her support of individualism…

Scripts Magazine has an article about the guy who’s writing the Atlas Shrugged screenplay. The one with Angelina Jolie.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:47:59 +0000

The “they” refers to the “hurt people” (those who will have to pay) that I mentioned in the preceding sentence. These are the same people who have the majority vote. I won’t bother speculating how such a rotten collectivist policy would be marketed, as I really don’t see it to be a feasible alternative. With the increasing population, it would just hurt our nation more and more economically. Social security and welfare programs need to end.

And I do appreciate you coming to talk with us! Welcome!

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:45:29 +0000

I’m just a guy who searched “Objectivism” on iTunes one day, found the show, found you guys, and thought it might be fun to challenge you a bit. And it has been!

By: Brandon

Brandon — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:27:22 +0000

I disagree, Steve. People don’t vote for things “because they’re stupid,” but usually because they “sound good.” Your proposal blatantly hurts people where they feel it the most: their wallets. And what do they get in return? Less benefits. That sounds wonderful.

By: Mosley

Mosley — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:21:00 +0000

Steve,
Could you give us a small bio about you. I would like to know alittle about the person that is the #1 commenter on this blog. Also you should be one our podcast as a call in!

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 16 May 2007 20:13:49 +0000

Do you really think that is the way they are going to sell it?

And who is this “they” that you speak of? The people who pay social security benefits and the people who receive them are two different groups.

By: Mosley

Mosley — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:57:09 +0000

That’s what I was looking for. Thatâ€™s a far better response then, â€œBut voters always vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purposeâ€!

You explained your self well.

Also I think congress doesnâ€™t trust Bush so they dismiss any idea he comes up with. I donâ€™t know why they didnâ€™t look in to his reform idea from what I know of it, it seemed like a good idea.

Also, Social Security was supposed to be temporary when it was started. It was meant to get the country back on its feet after the Depression. But once a â€œbenefitâ€ is there itâ€™s hard to take it away, even though they would be better of with out it. Itâ€™s like a kid learning how to ride a bike, there afraid to take the training wheels off, because they â€œmightâ€ get hurt.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:42:57 +0000

No you can’t say always, but that wasn’t the crux of the issue, was it?

Brandon suggested that people won’t vote for a program that costs more than it returns. His intitial comment seemed to suggest that this was self-evident, on account of how stupid the program was. Obviously, nobody would vote for a stupid program.

But this is, obviously, false. People can and do vote for stupid programs all of the time. Social security exists in the first place, doesn’t it? And in 2005, President Bush made a half-assed attempt to get a reform debate brewing in Congress, only to see that smacked down immediately by Congressmen afraid to even discuss changing it. So stupid or not, it seems that quite a few voters do like the program (and would likely vote to continue it, in whatever form it must take to be affordable)

Which doesn’t mean that they will or won’t vote for this one, it just means that the stupidity of a program isn’t proof that it won’t be chosen.

By: Mosley

Mosley — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:29:08 +0000

Well done guys. Your debates are very entertaining and I learn a lot from both of you.

Steve,
Your side of the debates lose steam once your reach a point were your not using reason.
â€œBut voters always vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purpose.â€
You canâ€™t say always. You will never now how anyone will vote so that statement is false. You could have said,”Looking at pass elections is seems the majorirty of voters vote for programs that are extremely inefficient, and which do not in fact achieve their purpose. So how do you know if it would not be supproted?”