THIS is why we need improved border security - Page 2

Atomic Dog · 03-16-2008, 02:04 PM

I'd rather roll with the punches. We're Americans. We sure know how to throw a punch, we should be expected to know how to take one to the chin as well.

Quote:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

**TurkishDelight** · 03-16-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atomic Dog

The obstacle of applying for legal citizenship within the United States is that it costs over a thousand US dollars to get the proccess started.

How much do you think they pay the "Coyotes" to get them across?

More than a bag of pesos....

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-16-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elwenil

No, we are a country, not a prison. I do think that we do need to either decide that we will give up some civil liberties to have more security or have the liberties and take the punches that come as a result of them. In my opinion, I would gladly deal with some Customs hassle at the border to know that our country is more secure against illegal entry of unknowns and drugs. The Canadian border with the US should be just as secure. If it takes something similar to the Iron Curtain, so be it but American citizens and those with the proper legal ID and permissions should be able to come and go as they please. Oddly enough, the coasts are probably the mos secure borders we have. We are able to see a lot far and wide with electronic eyes at sea and we don't have similar devices for use on land.

Ahhh the old "give up liberty for security" thing. I say screw security if it affects my liberty.

Plus in this case it is the intrusion into my liberty (my decision to use, or not to use, drugs) that is decreasing my security in the first place.

And with your idea we treat the rest of the world like a prison. That sits uncomfortably in my soul.

So I must vehemently disagree with your idea.

Elwenil · 03-16-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Ahhh the old "give up liberty for security" thing. I say screw security if it affects my liberty.

I would agree on that point if it were not for the ridiculous tendency for Americans in general to need to blame someone when something goes wrong. Take 911 for example, sure, that was a direct result of our openness and the need for our personal liberties but of course after it happened the finger needed to be pointed somewhere. Odd that pointing it at those responsible was not good enough they had to blame those who were supposed to somehow magically protect them without infringing on their rights at all. You can't have both.

Due to personal reasons and experience, I am not going to comment on the drug thing.

I would gladly treat the world as a prison or as though they were second class compared to Americans if it means the continued existence and prosperity of the country I love. Too many empires have fallen because they too closely embraced the ideals and problems of others.

Atomic Dog · 03-16-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elwenil

I would agree on that point if it were not for the ridiculous tendency for Americans in general to need to blame someone when something goes wrong. Take 911 for example, sure, that was a direct result of our openness and the need for our personal liberties but of course after it happened the finger needed to be pointed somewhere. Odd that pointing it at those responsible was not good enough they had to blame those who were supposed to somehow magically protect them without infringing on their rights at all. You can't have both.

The problem wasn't with Americans not knowing who to blame...the problem was with the administration pumping out the propoganda on WHO to blame. And now American's are pointing the finger back at the Administration for getting us involved in a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 to begin with. And where is Osama? Who is that anyhow? We seem to have forgotten all about the real enemy. If he was in Afghanistan...we gave him plenty of time to get the hell out of dodge now.

Quote:

I would gladly treat the world as a prison or as though they were second class compared to Americans if it means the continued existence and prosperity of the country I love. Too many empires have fallen because they too closely embraced the ideals and problems of others.

I guess that's the real problem in my eyes. We were never meant to become an Empire. Empires DO fall. There's not one empire in our history books that didn't fall. If we continue down this road...it's not security that will topple us, it is the destruction we're causing to ourselves within our own borders.

Kerostasis · 03-16-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

1. The gangs dealing in illegal products to make money.

2. Illegal drugs create an unimaginably large underground market worth billions of dollars.

3. Other than stolen goods, gangs don't profit from the sales of legal products.

4. The enormous amount of profit to be gained in the drug trade forces gangs into violent competition with rivals and law enforcement; hence, they have the need to be heavily armed to protect their profits.

Conclusion: If street drugs were legal, gangs would have no economic incentive to traffic and sell these products, nor the ability to use violence to control the drug market.

Ever had a gang member with a machine gun try to sell you a $20 apple, or a $5000 computer?

Not quite. Allow me to offer an alternative line of thought:
1: Drugs create an unimaginably large market worth billions of dollars
2: Gangs create large amounts of profit by illegally selling these drugs
3: It is economically worth the expense of paying large paramilitary forces to safeguard the drug trade, if doing so will prevent confiscation of their valuable product by government or rivals
4: If the drug trade were legalized, the potential for huge profits would still exist, but the danger of government confiscation would be eliminated (or at least heavily reduced).
Conclusion: The gangs would keep trafficking their drugs, but would no longer find it economically profitable to hire large mercenary forces to protect them.

Elwenil · 03-16-2008, 02:44 PM

I'm sorry but I will never be able to agree that legalizing drugs will ever prevent violence nor would it be an intelligent decision for a country to make. Come to think of it, is there any country on Earth where all "recreational" drugs are legal? Not counting lawless states like those in Africa.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-16-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elwenil

I'm sorry but I will never be able to agree that legalizing drugs will ever prevent violence nor would it be an intelligent decision for a country to make. Come to think of it, is there any country on Earth where all "recreational" drugs are legal? Not counting lawless states like those in Africa.

So we should re-introduce Prohibition?

Elwenil · 03-16-2008, 03:41 PM

Probably, but then I can drink in moderation and it has no ill effects on me. I drink one beer with dinner about once every 4 months. I doubt many drug users or addicts could say the same about their drug use. If they could, I may have a different opinion.

**sordavie** · 03-16-2008, 04:08 PM

By the way, neither of the numbered arguments in this thread are formally valid as stated. If you're going to spend the effort to number your premises, you should make sure you're presenting a formally valid argument.

Kerostasis · 03-16-2008, 04:23 PM

Totally not helping Sordavie...

Fenian420 · 03-16-2008, 05:10 PM

Yea I've never really understood how weed is illegal but tobacco isnt...

Tell me which one kills more..

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 03-16-2008, 05:27 PM

Weed.

(This add paid for by the Alcohol Producers of America.)

ScratchMonkey · 03-16-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

4: If the drug trade were legalized, the potential for huge profits would still exist, but the danger of government confiscation would be eliminated (or at least heavily reduced).
Conclusion: The gangs would keep trafficking their drugs, but would no longer find it economically profitable to hire large mercenary forces to protect them.

A "gang" is a group organized to provide its own violence because it can't rely on government to achieve justice. Allow that group to use government and the violence is taken care of (by the government). (And, yes, I'm saying that our government is a gang. Just a gang with formalized written rules. And lots of muscle to carry them out.)

Profit arises from risk. The lower the risk, the less profit you make. You still can have large gross revenue if your volume is high, but your margin will be smaller without the risk. Similarly, your gross profit can be high with a large volume, but your profit rate (ie. per unit of product) would be small.

ScratchMonkey · 03-16-2008, 06:17 PM

Note that a lot of illegals entering the US have no interest in citizenship. They just want a job. Europe does quite well with a large guest worker population.

Labor is just another input into production. We import a lot of raw materials, competing with local supplies. Why not import labor, as well? That way we're not having to export a lot of foreign aid to keep those same workers from starving. They'd actually be producing wealth instead of only consuming it.

03-16-2008, 02:44 PM	#22 (permalink)
Elwenil Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Covington, VA USA Age: 34 Posts: 1,226	Re: THIS is why we need improved border security I'm sorry but I will never be able to agree that legalizing drugs will ever prevent violence nor would it be an intelligent decision for a country to make. Come to think of it, is there any country on Earth where all "recreational" drugs are legal? Not counting lawless states like those in Africa. __________________ \|TG\|Elwenil A vote for Obama is change we can believe in? So was the last ice age, but that don't make it good.

03-16-2008, 03:41 PM	#24 (permalink)
Elwenil Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Covington, VA USA Age: 34 Posts: 1,226	Re: THIS is why we need improved border security Probably, but then I can drink in moderation and it has no ill effects on me. I drink one beer with dinner about once every 4 months. I doubt many drug users or addicts could say the same about their drug use. If they could, I may have a different opinion. __________________ \|TG\|Elwenil A vote for Obama is change we can believe in? So was the last ice age, but that don't make it good.

03-16-2008, 04:08 PM	#25 (permalink)
sordavie Join Date: Nov 2005 Age: 27 Posts: 1,790	Re: THIS is why we need improved border security By the way, neither of the numbered arguments in this thread are formally valid as stated. If you're going to spend the effort to number your premises, you should make sure you're presenting a formally valid argument. __________________

03-16-2008, 05:10 PM	#27 (permalink)
Fenian420 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 835	Re: THIS is why we need improved border security Yea I've never really understood how weed is illegal but tobacco isnt... Tell me which one kills more..

03-16-2008, 05:27 PM	#28 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 39 Posts: 2,133	Re: THIS is why we need improved border security Weed. (This add paid for by the Alcohol Producers of America.) __________________ Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08 --- I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

03-16-2008, 06:17 PM	#30 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 3,529	Re: THIS is why we need improved border security Note that a lot of illegals entering the US have no interest in citizenship. They just want a job. Europe does quite well with a large guest worker population. Labor is just another input into production. We import a lot of raw materials, competing with local supplies. Why not import labor, as well? That way we're not having to export a lot of foreign aid to keep those same workers from starving. They'd actually be producing wealth instead of only consuming it. __________________ Sig

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links