Comments on: Borders and Liberty

By: stop spam plugin

stop spam plugin — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:27:54 +0000

Stop Spam…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to. Their service is self explanatory[...]……

By: cmbuxri

cmbuxri — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:55:39 +0000

qZLBrX inmdodbnfwut, [url=http://fwyzldemqijy.com/]fwyzldemqijy[/url], [link=http://dfhtqpshndut.com/]dfhtqpshndut[/link], http://vpujnvrnwquv.com/

By: Jon Ogden

Jon Ogden — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:41:53 +0000

As usual, FEE adopts a one-worlder approach to the subject of nations, indistinguishable in many respects, from Obama’s. Any person who claims that we do not have the right to determine who enters our country will soon be arguing that we do not have the right to determine who walks into our house. And individuals right to associate implies that a group of individuals may decide, by whatever means they wish, who it is they wish to associate with.

By: James Smith

James Smith — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:18:40 +0000

Greetings from a voter and advocate of responsible freedom:
Who is the voice of FEE and CATO on this on capitol Hill(now Capital Hill)?

It is a relative poor use of my time to even read this since my influence is negligible compared with the political machine and the wizards of OZ, I mean wizards of DC.

What is their response to this article? Who is in power to change the border patrol? Where is debate that is enlightening even occurring among those who can make decisions that make a difference? Who gains what when the border is effected?

Since this is more a political statement with economic impact, the politics are primary and fundamental. “Follow the money” seems a better approach to change than pure economics because those who benefit personally could care less about you or I and general economics. That is a truth about “Human Action”.

By: Jackson Pemberton

Jackson Pemberton — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:16:09 +0000

I am a bit puzzled by this non sequitur: “…the United States has erected a steel wall in San Diego to divide the two countries and invested in a wide range of high-tech surveillance gear. Why? To prevent people who want to work in the United States, and who will make us better off by increasing economic activity, from doing so.” Mr. Morriss seems to leave reason and jump over the wall to emotion here. The wall does not prevent people from coming over the border to work – unless they intend to do so illegally and thus be in a position to abuse our welfare state. I have no argument with their enhancing our economics by working here legally (or maybe even illegally). I see that wall as a means to prevent a foreign invasion. Does the rate of invasion matter? Well sure. It’s easier to deal with a slow one, but it is nonetheless an invasion when it is illegal.

By: Border-Security Bill to Be Signed by Obama | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:45:18 +0000

[...] Timely Classic “Borders and Liberty” by Andrew P. [...]

By: M. C. Ridge

M. C. Ridge — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:21:05 +0000

Dr. Moriss’ comments are correct as far as they go.

Unfortunately, as Milton Friedman evidently said, free immigration and a welfare state cannot coexist. Friedman evidently thought that because illegal immigration was illegal, illegal immigrants would be unable to tap into the U.S. welfare state. Certainly at this time, illegal immigrants are quite able to tap into the welfare state, including everything from free medical care to public school, from public assistance to many other social services. Children of illegal immigrants are fed breakfast and lunch at public schools, through state (read private citizen) support. Illegal immigrants are able to avoid many legal requirements, such as having automobile insurance, that legal immigrants and citizens must obey. There is even evidence that illegal immigrants are able to vote in our elections and are even encouraged to.

In other words, the barrier of illegality that Friedman thought would prevent illegal immigrants from reaping the largess of the U.S. welfare system doesn’t exist anymore (if it ever did) and the situation works against the individual citizen and the entire country. The solution isn’t clear, but those who quote Friedman in various contexts are muddying the waters, not clarifying them.

In any case, I’d like to see Dr. Morriss’ thoughts on this delimma.

By: Obama, Arizona Government Talk about Border | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:01:43 +0000

[...] Timely Classic “Borders and Liberty” by Andrew P. [...]

By: Arizona Immigrant Law Heads to Court | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Arizona Immigrant Law Heads to Court | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:52:06 +0000

[...] Timely Classic “Borders and Liberty” by Andrew P. [...]

By: Freedom In Jeopardy « The Secret People

Freedom In Jeopardy « The Secret People — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:32:43 +0000

[...] Andrew P. Moriss, “The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty”, July 2004, and available on-line at: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/borders-and-liberty/. In connection with this article by Andrew Moriss, the author of this essay strongly feels that a [...]