“… or some law enforcement agency, or troops to secure the border.”
Or, you know, we could just do nothing, call that intended impotence “comprehensive immigration reform,” then pat ourselves on the back for being such champions of universal human liberty. Plus, more people to pander to!
— Which, hell, that seems a lot easier — and a lot more gratifying — than being labeled a xenophobic hater of the brown people, doesn’t it — particularly if you aren’t one of those pushy citizens who has to live near by to all this new undocumented freedom?
Ah yes, the great minds must come together to comprehensively come up with a comprehensive plan that will secure the border comprehensively. Bull.
The ‘most powerful nation on earth’ can’t secure it’s own border? Like the old saying goes ‘there’s no such thing as can’t, only won’t’.
This is strictly a matter of will. But too many people have a vested financial and political interest in keeping the border loose.
The Soviet Union had no problem securing their border- and the borders of half the countries in Europe. China doesn’t have much trouble in this endeavor either.
It’s just a matter of will. That and putting your national security needs ahead of politicians need to pander to a segment of the population for votes and business’ desire for cheap labor.
In the case of the USSR and the PRC that’s because nobody wanted to break in (Norks excepted). Europe’s borders are probably more fluid than Europeans are willing to let on.
Point taken ,Ernst. But they had the will to use whatever means necessary to ensure it stayed that way. I guarantee you that the situation on our southern border would not happen with them, and they wouldn’t care if that ended up with thousands of dead Mexicans to ensure it.
Again, any arguments I hear such as Nappy’s “show me a twenty foot wall and I’ll show you a twenty five foot ladder” are non starters with me. And it wouldn’t take nearly as many people to do it as many seem to think.
If we secure the border how is Obama gonna get the guns across to the Mexican drug lords?
The border would be a heck of a lot easier to guard if we simply moved it to be congruent with the eastern borders of Oaxaca and Veracruz. Heck of a lot shorter, at the very least.
ot bill ayers might have to update dreams of my kenyan father
link
ot bill ayers might have to updatedreams of my kenyan father part 2
link
Chiná built a frickin’ wall you can see from space, what, a thousand years ago?
The country that went to the moon, built the Hoover Dam, won WW II? I think we could it.Shovel ready project.
The only credible shovel ready project worthy of the attention of American voters is burying the politicians now conducting the nation into oblivion. If the people can’t bring themselves get rid of these malefactors first, as a matter of immediate primacy, then there is no point in building a border fence.
Ahh, yes, sdferr.
The bottom line fatal flaw to any plan.
‘The People’.
In what sense do you intend the people as the “fatal flaw” mc4?
That they can be ignored, as for instance in the case of the passage of ObamaCare? Or in the sense that there are so damned many of them, requiring so damned many bullets to eradicate? Or in some other sense, one that has nothing to do with buying into the “consent of the governed” and the initial sally ” We the People . . . etc.” as an instantiation of that principle?
Barack Obama and I were born in the same year. The year he graduated from high school was the year I graduated from high school. A calculator for a fifth grader, or any K-12 student, in 1971? Highly unlikely.
Daddy Soetero bought a calculator during the Selma March that inspired him to knock up Ann Dunham, and just passed it down.
Reality: It’s what you say it is.
In the sense that they are easily manipulated. And even with all that goes on, you can’t get enough of them to care, much less be bothered to act.
They have, as a whole allowed things to get to this point. The people we have governing us couldn’t get away with anything they’ve done without the tacit approval of the governed.
Then ought we to grant that the original theory is fatally flawed at the root? And abandon it for a better theory therefore? These, it seems to me anyhow, are questions that demand answers from us, particularly should we have already tacitly decided we ought to chase after a recovery of that original theory in practice, only to be exposed to the possibility that we’ll discover later — to our dismay — that it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
We should do what’s necessary, and continue on. The likes of you, Squid, Jeff, and others should continue all of your efforts, and keep on giving a damn. But be under no illusions that the people will help’ or even be on our side. Really, only 1-2% , if that, can be counted on to do the heavy lifting, and when the time comes, the serious fighting.
Maybe sometimes I despair too much, but I see what’s going on, and where it’s going.
And too many of my fellow Americans either don’t care and can’t be bothered, or willingly assist in our eventual distruction.
“But be under no illusions that the people will help or even be on our side.”
Maybe I misunderstand the theory, but it seems to me that “our side” isn’t something with which the people ought properly to be concerned. On the contrary, their concern is to be on their own side. In order to do this — to see after their interests — they ought to pay attention to their interests (at least I believe this is what the framers reasonably expected of them). If the people choose to wave their hands to say, “we aren’t interested in our interests”, then we’ll have to find the theory wrong, or at least inadequate to explain the events.
I think my father had something like that. At any rate, I remember using a calculator about that size with a red LED display in the early to middle 80s.
Unfortunately, all will be overtaken by the events.
While I see your point, I’m not sure about your bottom line. Sure, individuals should be free to be concerned about their interests, and wants, and be free to pursue them.
But most of what is discussed here isn’t about individuals as much as it is about us as a nation, and what is becoming of that nation.
“Unfortunately, all will be overtaken by the events.”
Why would this necessarily be unfortunate? I mean, for instance, the lack of air conditioning was overtaken by the invention of air conditioning, and that, we might believe, left the world in a better condition than in an unfortunate one.
What makes you think the end result of current events will be a good thing?
I didn’t say any such thing.
No, you didn’t.
But if current policies come to fruition, I doubt that the results will be as beneficial as the invention of air conditioning.
But that’s not the point, if I may insist.
Suppose we were to ask men in an intense moment of political ferment and uncertainty (like the pre-Revolutionary War period, 1774, say) what would come in the relatively near future? What, we ask them, would their politics look like in 1787? Would the man of 1774, even the well educated and thoroughly attentive man, have been able to forecast the creation wrought in the summer of 1787? I think not. And yet, we here, looking back on that summer, no less than the men of the time in the winter of 1787, are amazed at the greatness of the novel product brought forth from Philadelphia.
Ultimately, things may get better. But they’re certainly going to get worse first, thanks to the stupidity and laziness of the populace. If there’s a fatal flaw to the original theory, it’s that success breeds complacency and decadence which allows for the perversion of the project. Perhaps Adams captured it:
If Adams did capture the kernel of the thing (and it’s highly likely he knew he did), why oh why is no measure made to at the very least ward against, if not positively ensure, the possibility of that eventuality? Or is such a device incommensurable with the plan itself (I rather suspect this latter)?
I’m not so sure about that. The principles expressed in 1776 certainly existed in 1774. Revolution was in the air. Perhaps they mightn’t have imagined the specific results of 1787, but they understood what they were after. One thing they clearly would have been able to see coming was war. Which, I’m beginning to understand how that felt.
Excellent points, sdferr. But I think they require more of a faith in our countrymen than I have these days.
We have throughout our past come out the other side of cataclysmic events and tribulations a stronger and better nation than before.
But although we don’t face the degree of such things now, such as world wars with our very existence at stake, I feel that we are in more danger now than ever.
And I don’t feel that overall, in quality or quantity, have the caliber of people we had then.
Aristotle had similar thoughts, as I recall.
“Perhaps they mightn’t have imagined the specific results of 1787 . . . ”
They surely didn’t (and that was the key to the hypothetical), since they had to traverse the perils and alarms of 1786 on account of the inadequacy of the Articles of Confederation. Not only did no-one imagine the Spanish Inquisition, they didn’t imagine the zeal and intelligence of James Madison either.
I’m inclined to agree. Can you legislate morality while defending liberty? Can you defend against insidious evils while defending liberty? Hell of a Catch 22.
I’m reminded that Jefferson’s estimation of the success of the project, in terms of longevity, has been wildly exceeded.
We’ve never been in a place before when so many not only didn’t believe in but had outright disdain for the founding principles.
Gird your loins, kids.
“Hell of a Catch 22. ”
It’s a pickle. And it’s a pickle we can work on, but it’s good to know what we’re up against going in.
ps: I like the bread and butter ones well enough, but half-done dills the best.
Snopes says you cannot see the Great Wall of China from space.
Pablo at 6:41; I think you nail it. If I may expand on your points.
I think sometimes that we face the end of the American experiment because maybe we’ve hit the proverbial wall. Maybe we can only advance so far as a people, a nation, indeed as a species. Maybe human weakness will eventually use the flip side of freedom to destroy us, and within the wearing down of personal responsibility as a common thread in us as a people, that becomes more of a danger every day.
Maybe in the end, the Constitution will become a suicide pact, after all.
Could be that proverbial walls are fictional walls though. Or, there ain’t no trying like trying.
You always have to try, SD. As long as there’s breath in your body.
What you can see from space depends on how good your optics are and what you are trying to look at. I think you mean you cannot see the Great Wall of China unaided from a low earth orbit.
Think about it this way. Imagine you had the Hubble telescope. Now point it at the earth. What can you see?
Today is the 237th anniversary of the “Shot Heard Round The World”.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50799
I like to think there will be enough of us to reboot after the crash.
And little Jimmy Madison, mc4ever59? Who was he in 1774? Born in 1751, he was a 23 yr old nobody, studiously bent to his books. A puny fellow, he wouldn’t have been of much martial worth anyhow, so he may as well have kept to his Hebrew and Greek studies, while polishing his French, and Latin, the better to read and understand the Bible, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Cicero and Thucydides. And how did the founding generation come to where they were in 1787? By just such means.
Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day. I didn’t hear Obama speechifying about it, though.
I sense some kind of rebuke in there, sdferr, although I can’t think of a reason why.
Who are today’s little Jimmy’s? And will they have time to develop and step forth? Time is not our friend either. I don’t know if we have enough.
There’s no rebuke intended, unless possibly residual in my disgust at America’s debauchery of her birthright, but that can only be an unfocused broadshot not aimed at any particular person (and including myself in the bunch, for not having done enough to prevent what was preventable).
I understand. I share in your disgust, and often the frustration can be nearly overwhelming.
We do what we can do, and stay vigilant for a more ways to make a difference and contribution.
I had given up on commenting, even reading the comments , at other sites, until stumbling across PW not long ago. You folks “get it”. I am happy to be among your company.
And I believe that when push comes to shove, and answers are needed, that they will come from you fine folks and the likes of you elsewhere.
And how did the founding generation come to where they were in 1787?
did you know that the titanic was real? who knew?
Just came across these, but I’m sure they bear watching: Occupy & “99% Spring” Training Videos Are Online Part 1
The fundamental flaw in your logic is that the Framers in no sense expected that “the People” participating in the vote guiding the country would be equal to the entire population of the country. The warm-body democracy we have now would have horrified them. That’s why there is no enumerated right to vote mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Even the drafters of the 13th and 14th Amendments didn’t establish one; they simply said that you couldn’t put extra restrictions based solely on race.
Once you realize that, for example, people on the dole were routinely disallowed from voting as a matter of public policy, the root cause of our problem becomes obvious: fools, crooks, and the lazy will always outnumber the productive, and warm body democracy guarantees the death of freedom.
Well said, SDN.
A nation is only as strong as it’s people. The leftists have made such strides because they understand human nature. They know to appeal to the baser parts of that nature through the promise of ‘goodies’ in exchange for influence.
Most people are like water. They’ll always take the path of least resistance.
Dayum. The more I read, the more I think, the more I suspect that we are at the end of this particular experiment in human liberty. I hope we’ve learned enough so that we fine- tune the Republic of American States.
Reality: It’s what
youwe say it is.Don’t be gettin’ uppity there George.
I suspect that’s too narrow SDN.
Who then are “the people” referred to in the fourth amendment — taking one of the first ten amendments practically at random — here: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, . . . etc.”? Are these “people” restricted to some segment of the whole population of warm bodies? Some segment deemed somehow sufficiently enlightened and fit to vote? Is the term merely some equivocal sleight of hand? What of “the people” mentioned in the first amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . .”? Another equivocal use? Or the second: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . “?
If the federal framing could leave or entrust the definition of qualified voters to the individual states (which initially it does, until modified later), that doesn’t remove the interests of those warm bodied “people” covered and governed under the Constitution from their immediate grasp. In states where women hadn’t the vote (I believe in New Jersey women did have the franchise), women nevertheless had an interest in their governance, and could see to their interests in their private dealings with those who did have the franchise or in public with those who stood at office. So I don’t think the theory disincluded anybody in the frame from both possession of interests consequent on governance and the means to see after them (“right of the people peaceably to assemble”, for instance), not even restricting all these human rights to citizens, but recognizing their possession by others merely deemed persons, such as might be a visiting foreigner or the like.
By the by, there’s good stuff over here at the Library of Law and Liberty, in particular in this piece about the reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts and the follow-on pieces to it, and in the underlying documents that give the discussion heft.
sdferr, again, the rights referred to are based on the natural rights automatically possessed by being born. Voting was not ever listed among those rights. You are making the same mistake the other side does by confusing the privilege of voting with the natural right of say self-defense.
Actually, just by establishing a republic instead of a democracy, that’s exactly what the founders did. They further intended that the privilege of choosing representatives be restricted to those who were contributors by at least being productive enough to support themselves.
The Constitution was meant to restrain that government from infringing on inherent rights: This is something you can’t do to anyone. Again, voting is not a right.
I don’t think I’m confused on the question of the interests to which I referred in the comment you initially quoted SDN, nor, so far as I can tell, on the question how the framers looked at those interests. But you’re welcome to think I am, if it suits your purpose.
My only purpose is to make sure that someone reading this is aware that the founders didn’t set up a warm body democracy, that by setting one up we have absolutely guarandamnteed the system can’t work and will fail, and that whatever replaces it had better guard against a repeat.
SDN —
Even my wife is intrigued by the idea that only those who pay taxes — that is, who have skin in the game — be allowed to vote.
And that’s something ten years ago neither of us would have ever even considered.
Does the notion of “skin in the game” extend to military service in the sense that only taxpayers will be allowed to die in preservation of the liberties and peace of the nation? Or to finding oneself annihilated in a collapsing building or under a radioactive cloud or shot by drug-traffickers while patrolling one’s employer’s ranch at the border? It seems to me that where it comes to our interests as members of the polity, whether voting members or not, we’re kinda all in it together in the “either we hang together or we hang separately” sense Dr. Franklin is said to have remarked.
” Even my wife is intrigued by the idea that only those who pay taxes — that is, who have skin in the game — be allowed to vote.”
Then congress gets a tax relief bill passed taking you and a lot of other inconvenient voters in a certain income bracket off the tax rolls, and then you lose your suffrage, and the government says “you’re welcome.
And let’s not have tax merely mean income tax. I pay a lot of taxes. And fees. And it really sucks that they keep creeping along to gobble up more and more of my pay check.
Then congress gets a tax relief bill passed taking you and a lot of other inconvenient voters in a certain income bracket off the tax rolls…
I think you’re inserting Congress into what is a State concern. If Minnesota were to exempt me from paying property taxes, income taxes, liquor taxes, gasoline taxes, and the rest, well, I suppose I could live with not having a voice in the Capitol.
Under such a system, I figure 40% of voters are off the rolls from the outset, since they’re tax eaters to begin with. This would leave the Left with nothing but MPR listeners, so they’d move to exempt 40% on the other side. Now I’m imagining a State government where 80% of the electorate pays no taxes, and I gotta say, I find the idea rather appealing…
It’s appealing until it gets used against you. Standard McCain-Feingold type reasoning.
Well, clearly this is not an advocacy idea that exists in a vacuum. The stated reason would be so that those who don’t pay into the federal system — and who live off the tax revenues others pay — can’t vote themselves more of other people’s stuff.
So any monkeying around would change the intent of the measure.
And of course, it is unworkable. Yet, it seems like the only real way to prevent eventual tipping point socialism, short of really really convincing arguments. And the GOP ain’t ain’t about to make them.
Look up how the founders defined the militia. I suspect they would have had no problems with that. Of course, we could always count military service as payment of taxes and tie it to the franchise a la Heinlein.
Or you’re deliberately missing the point.
If someone who has functioned as a leech on the body politic can claim the same right to guide its’ decisions, then we end up exactly where we are today: get 50% +1 vote and you can grind the productive into the ground.
Re-examination of the origin of “the same right”, or of right in any sense, but preferably in the first and primary sense, might just get us somewhere with regard to fixing our intent as to the aim of the establishment of right in general, or the purpose of modern natural right politics, to put it another way. But that’s just the idiosyncratic path down which I tend to look at the question, along with Hobbes, Locke and the rest of these old characters. Especially now that political things seem to have spun out of control, indicating that something is amiss.
Don’t see many flaws in the Heinlein approach. I just think that letting tax eaters vote themselves more stuff is a built in self -destruct to any political system.