The author states he supports a return to something like the ‘open’ borders of the 19th century. Does he also support abolition of the federal welfare state in its entirety? As Milton Freedman has pointed out, you can have either a welfare state or open borders, but not both. Most of us know abolition of the welfare state is not possible, which fuels our opposition to relatively unrestricted immigration.
Abolish the welfare state and require assimilation, and I’m there with you on relatively unrestricted immigration. However, the order is important. The experience in 1986 showed that.
You can have both, you just have to exclude immigrants from the welfare system for a few years. Require them to establish a track record of working and contributing for a few years before they become eligible and they won't suddenly switch to living on welfare when that eligibility arrives, any more than native born citizens do. Less, actually, since immigrants tend to be much more motivated.
Countries with higher levels of immigration have lower levels of welfare, though never abolition of welfare. Immigration and diversity make welfare less popular.
You do realize what you are saying: if the Overton Window doesn’t include freedom for all men, then some men must be slaves (at least until the window moves further from enslaving men to liberty for all men). That’s what Lincoln in effect represented; And Fredrick Douglass vehemently opposed on moral grounds.
Principles cannot be changed by election results, but a system based on majority rule will always be unjust and limit men’s liberty.
The Overton Window is nothing more than an excuse for violating principles (and replacing them with privileges for some) because men are not ready to be fully moral. That’s what the Overton Window explains.
This article reminds me of two great chapters in the book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell.
One of them was about abolitionists vs pragmatists in terms of who was more decisive in ending slavery, and the other was about Booker T. Washington vs W.E.B. Du Bois.
The author states he supports a return to something like the ‘open’ borders of the 19th century. Does he also support abolition of the federal welfare state in its entirety? As Milton Freedman has pointed out, you can have either a welfare state or open borders, but not both. Most of us know abolition of the welfare state is not possible, which fuels our opposition to relatively unrestricted immigration.
I am not the author, but support near open borders, full bottom-up encouragement of assimilation/integration, and abolition of the welfare state.
Abolish the welfare state and require assimilation, and I’m there with you on relatively unrestricted immigration. However, the order is important. The experience in 1986 showed that.
What exactly do you mean by "the order is important."? Do you mean the sequence of which of those 3 things happens 1st, 2nd, and 3rd?
You can have both, you just have to exclude immigrants from the welfare system for a few years. Require them to establish a track record of working and contributing for a few years before they become eligible and they won't suddenly switch to living on welfare when that eligibility arrives, any more than native born citizens do. Less, actually, since immigrants tend to be much more motivated.
Countries with higher levels of immigration have lower levels of welfare, though never abolition of welfare. Immigration and diversity make welfare less popular.
You do realize what you are saying: if the Overton Window doesn’t include freedom for all men, then some men must be slaves (at least until the window moves further from enslaving men to liberty for all men). That’s what Lincoln in effect represented; And Fredrick Douglass vehemently opposed on moral grounds.
Principles cannot be changed by election results, but a system based on majority rule will always be unjust and limit men’s liberty.
The Overton Window is nothing more than an excuse for violating principles (and replacing them with privileges for some) because men are not ready to be fully moral. That’s what the Overton Window explains.
Gotta get the herd moving to guide them. Leading from behind. Ask Lincoln about it.
Lincoln himself said he didn't direct events. Events directed him.
Yeah, right. That IS what he said.
This article reminds me of two great chapters in the book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell.
One of them was about abolitionists vs pragmatists in terms of who was more decisive in ending slavery, and the other was about Booker T. Washington vs W.E.B. Du Bois.
U.S. Grant ended slavery in the most pragmatic way possible. Good for him.
W.E.B. Du Bois' ideals won the post-slavery "peace." That's why we're still at war.
Tom Friedman of the Times advocates for a high wall and a big gate.