devalues the currency.
Margaret Thatcher made great strides in doing just that, in the 80s. The populace benefited. It is possible for the right person to get elected and turn the tide. I do not support bad policies just to bring this govt to its knees. I do support standing up for what is right and to try and achieve happiness. I believe supporting chaos, even if the goal is to deplete the welfare state is immoral. But you do whatever you like

So your solution is to prolong the welfare state?

And it's not clear to me how their going into debt is taking anything from you.

whatever the state spends, it takes from productive citizens-doesn't matter if it's taxes or debt. If you look at History, when the welfare state fails catastrophically, you end up with dictators like Hitler most of the time. Not the solution I would like, thank you..(I'm replying to your last comment)

How does illegal immigration increase the amount stolen from you? There is little relationship between what they spend and what they loot. Just subtract what they take in from what they spend, and that's called the debt.

You're not paying for the welfare state. The looters are using stolen funds to pay for the welfare state.

It's QUITE possible to have open borders and a welfare state - of course it won't last as long as it would with closed borders. But then again, I don't want the welfare state to last very long...

we agree the problem is a welfare state. ultimately, my reason is because I am a producer not a looter. Since I am paying for this crazy welfare state, and illegal immigration increases the amount stolen from me, through welfare or crime, I want to limit my losses.
Free people should be allowed to move freely. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state.

You mentioned "illegal immigration", I responded specifically to the issue of "illegal immigration". You mentioned people "coming into the country illegally". I guess I thought "it" would obviously refer to immigration.

You say you are for "all legal immigration". But why subject your assessment of other people's actions (immigration) to the whims of a statutory body, which we know are fundamentally politically motivated. After all, the legality of anything, including immigration, is determined by those political organizations.

The problem you are identifying here is not immigration (illegal or otherwise). The problem is the welfare state.

Why try to prop up the welfare state by limiting the number of recipients clamoring for its handouts?

I'm not sure what you mean by "it"
One reason is protecting one's citizens. That is the primary importance of having borders in the first place. We don't do that well, compared to other nations. I am for all legal immigration. However, if you have a welfare state, services will become overwhelmed, especially if used as a strategy for immigration. Because of burdensome regulations and poor fiscal policy, opportunities are less than in prior decades. It's very difficult environment to start a business today in the US, so immigrants are more likely to work for someone else. The goal is for immigrants to create their own wealth not vie for food stamps and free healthcare like the already unemployed US population is doing.
The problem starts with welfare, poor border control, complicated policies on immigration-

But why is the legality/illegality of it relevant?

I'll bet you there are alot of people in this site who feel very strongly about controlling drugs. I'm not one of them

immigration is a tedious and legally-mired process. Like any govt agency, it's not done efficiently, costs too much and takes too long.
Separately, border control for the safety of our citizens is also ineffective. Crime is out of control in city areas near the border, and ranchers have been reduced to being vigilantes to protect their property.
The new immigration bill is over 1500 pages. you know there's junk in there that is nonsensical, has nothing to do with immigration, pork, impossible to comply rules. and that's with Rubio at the helm.
Since the US is a welfare state-it has obligations first and foremost to the citizens. Illegals have broken down many state welfare systems. For example, non-paying illegals overwhelmed several hospitals in Phoenix and Tucson, the hospitals eventually closed. If our welfare state did not exist, you would not see so many coming into the country illegally.
I live outside the country, and I can tell you there are movements to take over communities in states that Mexican nationals believe rightly belong to Mexico. The goal is to go to these communities, only speak spanish and overwhelm the local govts, eventually taking them over and driving out current residents who are US. This is very real and these people are very patient. Inversely, lots of Mexicans who went to the US to find work, build a US life have moved back to their towns in Mexico due to the discouraging economy of the US. Mexico, in contrast, has increased GDP by 5% in the last year.

I see. Actually I believe lots of drug dealers don't want decriminalization because it would decrease their profits.

I can even imagine drug dealers secretly lobbying - no scratch that, I can imagine people who lobby in favor of the drug war secretly being drug dealers.

I'm not sure about any party affiliation. It was at the city level, and so might have been nominally "non-partisan" politicians making the decisions.

I want to separately address the issue of illegal immigration. (Any racism component of the issue is miniscule I think.)

But regarding illegalities, do you care about rules made by the anti-dog-eat-dog politicians?

We're not talking about private property, here, where a person has a reasonable right to decide who is allowed into his gulch. We're talking about a gang of people in DC who drew a line on a map and claim to have the right to say who can and cannot come into the geographic region described by that line, even if individual property owners in the region are perfectly happy to have productive people come and work on their farms.

interesting stories. I'm curious. was the politician republican or democrat? also, it might make a difference geographically, but in the current climate, I can't imagine a situation where a politician would turn away Hispanic attendees from an event. All we do nowadays is describe everyone as being affiliated to a group. It is much worse since Obama became President.

for instance, black markets because drugs are illegal.

I agree the charge of "racism" is a tool use by the political system to manipulate people. No question about that.

Regarding having seen it: I happen to be white, and a few years ago I had a black/hispanic girlfriend, and she pointed out some shenanigans of local political figures who were not happy with the number of hispanics showing up for their functions. They rearranged scheduled events to decrease the number hispanics attending. It made me realize racism is not nearly as obvious to me as a white male as it is to those who are discriminated against. Prior to that, I had assumed racism was pretty much dead. Around the same time, I remember hearing my boss talking on the phone about "sand niggers". Now I don't know precisely what that means, but it really irritated me. This was about ten years ago.

Within the last couple years, a woman down the street from where I now live told me about a home invasion in which she chased the guy away with an ice pick. Of course she's "not racist, but blacks are afraid of ice picks". Huh? Any rational human being wouldn't want to be attacked with an ice pick.

On a broader scale, have you not heard of white separatism or black separatism? Even more recently, I learned that a local businessman (white) thinks, because of his religion, that white people were put here to have "dominion" over the world and lesser animals, which includes black people. Definitely sounds racist to me.

However, again, I definitely agree with you that a lie of "racism" is often used as a political tool.

Racism is miniscule compared to what is talked about. If you listen to the left...if you're white, you're a racist, if you hate B.O. it's because you're a racist, if you're against illegal immigration then you're a racist...the list is forever long and it simply is not true. And it's wrong to imply that it exists where it doesn't for the sake of conjuring up feelings of guilt to increase votes. But like I said, it apparently works. What is your idea of racism? When was the last time you've seen it?

I hope the answers I see here are typical here in the Gulch. Although I'm not sure I agree with you on this. It seems as though you are saying there isn't any real racism left in the world, only the perception of its existence encouraged by the powers that be so they can manipulate people. But what about separatist movements? Collectivism must have some boundary to define the collective, and I think race is used for that purpose commonly enough that we can say racism isn't really non-existent.

I do think the charge of racism is used exactly as you say, I just think that some racism does indeed still exist.

Ok, it's only fair. My answers: racism irritates the crap out of me. That's obviously my emotional response to it. On the intellectual side, I agree that racism is irrational, at least from an individualist perspective, and a waste of intellectual resources. On the subject of drugs, I don't like them, but I don't see any reason there should be laws regarding them - talk about wasted resources!

I don't know what you mean by "false markets".

Racism only exists in the minds of those who are desperate to keep it alive so they can use it as a political power tool of guilt and manipulation to keep people in P.C. lock step instead of thinking for themselves. And apparently it works.

evree,
what do You think about drugs and racism?
In my opinion, false markets make money unproductively. racism is irrational and a waste of intellectual resources (time and talent).

OOps... I was on the wrong post. Disregard.(loll)

..."taxable proceeds"... and is that a good thing?

I can only imagine that you think I should know the answer without having to ask, so you came up with some bizarre claim which I find it hard to believe anyone here would actually espouse. I don't quite get the connection, though, between the described attitude and that of the Aryan Brotherhood - on second thought, I suppose they're just both elitist asshole attitudes.

Thanks for the clear answer. I agree with you about bias.
And what about the content of this story? That is, what do people here think about drug trafficking? And what do people here think about racism?