You're speaking as if "poverty" were some sort of fluid. Having poor people is of itself neutral: there's no reason poor people must stay poor. They can work, invent, engage in entrepreneurship, and so on. If you actually tried to prove that poor people are inherently an economic liability, you'll realize that your thinking is hopelessly tangled up.
In election after election, both in this country and abroad, the very people who are the most inclined to vote political candidates who advocate "big government" solutions to public problems are the people of the lower classes.
That's bollocks; people of every economic stratum try to vote themselves benefits. The poor often favor direct welfare--but so do rich liberals; rich conservatives also bribe politicians and seek government contracts and other largesse. It's democracy itself that's a stupid idea, as the founders themselves knew very well.
...the disctrict that elected conservative Republican Bob Dornan to eleven consecutive terms has now become a Democratic stronghold for liberal Democrat Loretta Sanchez.
Yawn. Which Republicrat holds office is of very little interest to me. Even Freepers turn out to be statists too often. It's true that people prefer plunder over freedom, but it's hard to get excited about which sort of thief happens to have the upper hand at the moment.
You live in fairy tale world were there would be no government assistance programs...
You may be a fan of the welfare state, but I am not. I'll call it the injustice it is, even though I know it won't go away. Meanwhile, pot, meet kettly. You live in a fairy-tale world where politicians give a rat's patoot about stopping illegal immigration.
You're speaking as if "poverty" were some sort of fluid. Having poor people is of itself neutral: there's no reason poor people must stay poor. They can work, invent, engage in entrepreneurship, and so on. If you actually tried to prove that poor people are inherently an economic liability, you'll realize that your thinking is hopelessly tangled up.
*Sigh*...this sort of deconstruction may be fun to you but it is of little practical use for those of us that still operate in the real world.
No..having great amounts of poor people is not "nuetral". There all sorts of problems that have to be addressed and actually dealt with.
In theory all these people could conceivably "do something" but until all these people devise specific, practical ways in which to actually do just that your economy will continue to stagnate.
It's sort of like like saying that anyone can be a millionaire, -they just need to figure out a way to get a million bucks. How to actually get these masses of poor people out of poverty by transforming them into economically prosperous individuals remains the big question. You haven't solved the actual logistics involved. Until you (or these people) actually figure out a practical way to do exactly that, your "strategy" for these third world countries means nothing.
>>In election after election, both in this country and abroad, the very people who are the most inclined to vote political candidates who advocate "big government" solutions to public problems are the people of the lower classes.
That's bollocks; people of every economic stratum try to vote themselves benefits. The poor often favor direct welfare--but so do rich liberals; rich conservatives also bribe politicians and seek government contracts and other largesse. It's democracy itself that's a stupid idea, as the founders themselves knew very well.
Yes, you've now done a complete 180 and and conceded the implausibility of your open borders proposal! One must be able to reconcile the political dimension with the kind of economic philosphy/policy they are advocating.
That political dimension can difficult and very frustrating but alas it cannot be circumvented or simply swept aside (the communists found that out the hard way). And given a choice between doing away with the government largess altogether, or restricting immigration, - guess which way nine out ten citizens will vote...??
BTW, glad you mentioned the Founding Fathers. They were not actually in favor of open borders either, - were they..? Guess they must of thought that was a stupid idea as well.