Posted on 01/29/2017 12:36:24 PM PST by Kaslin
"He argued that the increase in population coupled with the border wall would lead to a breakdown in the US/Mexico relationship when it came to national security. “Now how are the Mexicans gonna feel about keeping that going when we're building a high wall?"
There!!! Finally an admission that the bottom line on the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat Party's absolute and unyielding hard line semantically described by the misnomer of "women's issues" is, in fact, "population control"!!
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Some dude comes in, pushes the button and everything starts up.
Everything gets made and it all gets done.
Just one big green button.
Good ol’ “let me tell you an amusing little anecdote relayed to me by some cabbie in a third world hellhole and notice how it relayed to the whole world being integrated.”
Tommie has small hands. Smells like cabbage.
What a blithering idiot.
I saw him say this. And he smirked like he was happy about it.
No it’s the liberal’s demands to raise minimum wage that started the automation process in various industries. They own it. This is merely deflection using the normal liberal doublespeak / self-projection method.
I have another quote that carries the same weight:
The sky is falling...the sky is falling!! Chicken Little
Indeed, when automation took over at my company, they offered to keep workers willing to become maintenance techs and engineers on the line.
It is funny how progressists refuse to progress with technology.
Progressists want the benefits of progress without having to progress themselves as automation specialists, adapting to the new tech work environment.
Apparently Tom Friedman doesn't own a car. Did the creation of the car make some jobs obsolete? Absolutely. The hardest hit were blacksmith's whose entire business was shoeing horses. However, they soon adapted, and in the meantime many more good paying jobs were created.
Banks still have tellers even after the creation of ATM machines, just not as many. However, those ATM machines need to be serviced on a regular basis and so many better paying jobs were created as a result.
The list can go on & on, but the reality is that progress may eliminate some jobs but they also create jobs. Usually those jobs are better paying jobs too.
One thing for sure, a robot would write better articles, and make better arguments. 8>)
But the automation does not destroy jobs. Instead it creates new higher paying jobs. People have to machine the parts to make the robots. Other people have to machine the parts that make the machines that make the machines that create the parts to make the robots. More people have to be trained to assemble and provide maintenance for those robotic machines. All of them higher paying jobs. So his argument is plain stupidity, because those would be Americans in those jobs. Jobs that wouldn’t be there without those changes taking place.
First, he has no idea how many hundreds of people it takes to run a "robotized" plant.
Secondly, right now that robotized plant with its hundreds or thousands of jobs are being built in Mexico rather than here... under Trump those jobs are coming home.
So, thought experiment. If the plant is robotized, why do you need to build it in a low wage country? Because, number one, there are hundreds or thousands of people working in these plants, still, and second, because the legal and regulatory environment trump all other considerations.
As usual, another excellent post.
Does Loopy not understand that automation is the result of high wages. High wages are justified in a work force that can adapt, where, robot do the same thing over and over. Unions and their comrades in the Bolshekratic Party would have us with a buggy whip in each car.
When exactly did the “robotics are to blame for lack of jobs” narrative originate and how did it so suddenly become the latest fashion among the yentelligencia?
"The employment will still be higher than no factories."
Friedman said on “Meet The Press’ this AM that people don’t listen with their ears, they listen with their stomachs”.
So what’s he doing on TV? Why didn’t he become a chef?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.