Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Reb View Post
    Why do we have to care for them? They came here illegally; we didn't ask them to come. If anything the enablers that hire the border jumpers should be made responsible for them and if it wipes them out financially then so be it.
    Because we knowingly benefit from their illegal and legally disadvantaged status. I'm not a bleeding heart, it simply that we knowing allow these people to be here and work here. EVERYONE knows who they are and where they are and yet they are not rounded up and deported (regardless of who is President or who owns the farms).

    It would be easy to design a guest-worker program, but not as long as Kim Wong Ark continues to be the prevailing case law. It also isn't necessary to have guest farm workers when we have millions of unemployed people who have simply forgotten how to get to work in the fields. Again, I have yet to see a bus pull up in the St Pete or Tampa poverty zones to take workers to pick tomatoes or strawberries. Why?

    We need to allow farm workers to be independent contractors.
    We need to allow farm workers to work for cash.
    We need to exempt seasonal farm labor from Workers Comp laws (Single Payer health insurance would effectively kill Workers Comp)
    We need to prosecute farmers who hire illegals. Prosecute, like put in jail.

    I would also like to see a return to the land perhaps following the model of kibbutzim. We still have some large tracts of land in this country which are suitable for farming and which are going unused. Some of it is cheap or free now that dreams of tract homes have melted. Particularly in the East it would be nice to see land tied up in communal farming trusts so that farming isn't simply a way of diddling around until it's time to start building cracker boxes again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Because we knowingly benefit from their illegal and legally disadvantaged status. I'm not a bleeding heart, it simply that we knowing allow these people to be here and work here. EVERYONE knows who they are and where they are and yet they are not rounded up and deported (regardless of who is President or who owns the farms).

    It would be easy to design a guest-worker program, but not as long as Kim Wong Ark continues to be the prevailing case law. It also isn't necessary to have guest farm workers when we have millions of unemployed people who have simply forgotten how to get to work in the fields. Again, I have yet to see a bus pull up in the St Pete or Tampa poverty zones to take workers to pick tomatoes or strawberries. Why?
    Because they don't need to work in order to be fed, clothed and housed. Welfare, Food Stamps, subsidized housing and a host of other programs have made them impervious to economic realities. Take those away, and you would have a hungry work force that would choose labor over starvation, assuming that they didn't riot, first.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    We need to allow farm workers to be independent contractors.
    We need to allow farm workers to work for cash.
    We need to exempt seasonal farm labor from Workers Comp laws (Single Payer health insurance would effectively kill Workers Comp)
    We need to prosecute farmers who hire illegals. Prosecute, like put in jail.
    You had me until you hit your single payer trope. Single pay would effectively kill Workers' Comp, but it would also effectively kill the medical profession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I would also like to see a return to the land perhaps following the model of kibbutzim. We still have some large tracts of land in this country which are suitable for farming and which are going unused. Some of it is cheap or free now that dreams of tract homes have melted. Particularly in the East it would be nice to see land tied up in communal farming trusts so that farming isn't simply a way of diddling around until it's time to start building cracker boxes again.
    Kibbutzim were not successful. Most failed, despite massive infusions of resources. The Becker and Posner Blog (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/20...sm-becker.html) had a great article on the history of the Kibbutzim and their eventual collapse, which is worth reading.
    The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism-Becker

    Much has been written about the rejection of socialism by major powers like China and the former Soviet Union. But nowhere is the failure of socialism clearer than in the radical transformation of the Israeli kibbutz. The kibbutz movement started in the early twentieth century in what was then Palestine by Zionist immigrants from Europe who were idealistic and utopian. Capitalism, industrialization, and the conventional family repelled these immigrants. Kibbutzniks, as they were called, replaced these fundamental aspects of modern societies with collective agriculture where all property was owned by the kibbutz, where adults were treated equally regardless of productivity, and they were rotated every few months among the various tasks that had to be performed on a farm, such as milking cows, planting crops, serving meals, and so forth. They considered the close-knit family to be a creation of capitalism, and substituted for that family structure communal dining, a fair amount of promiscuity, and separate communal living for all children, who were allowed only brief visits with their parents each day.

    Several decades ago I spent a few days on such a traditional kibbutz located in the Negev desert, where I was a guest of married couple with two children. The husband was unusual for a kibbutznik because he was a trained nuclear physicist. They had a two room apartment-their two children lived in dormitories with the other children of the kibbutz- I met the children briefly on a couple of their daily visits to their parents. We dined communally on good food, and we watched a movie in the large dining hall afterwards. Although my host had much more advanced training than other residents, that only gave him the right to spend a few months each year working at a nuclear facility that used his skills. The rest of the time he rotated like everyone else among the numerous menial tasks on the kibbutz. He was well paid for his outside professional work, but he had to hand over his pay to the kibbutz, and received the same benefits as everyone else. He was not happy with this arrangement, but since he grew up on this kibbutz he lacked the resources to buy an apartment and car, and make the other outlays required to move off the kibbutz into an urban environment where he could get a well paying job. For at that time, rent controls destroyed the rental market for housing, so young couples lived with their parents until they saved enough, or their parents gave them the money, to buy their own place. However, in this case, their parents did not have their own apartments since they too lived on a kibbutz, and they lacked the financial resources to help their children.

    The kibbutz movement was motivated in part by the Marxian dictum of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". By abolishing capitalistic organization, the founders expected members to live in contentment and harmony, and to work for the common good. However, from what I was told and could observe during my brief visit, there was not much harmony-jealousies abounded of those who were only a little better off, including my host because he was allowed to spend some time working at his profession off the kibbutz. Anger was also felt toward those who were considered slackers since they clearly lived off the labor of others. Since everyone ate, worked, and socialized together, small differences were magnified, and became festering sores. Nor were the family arrangements any more satisfactory since parents missed their children, and visa versa.

    The kibbutz movement was very important in the creation of Israel, and in its early days of independence. Many military leaders came from the Kibbutz, perhaps because they were accustomed to communal living. A disproportionate number of the early political leaders and intellectuals also had a kibbutz background. But as the New York Times recognized in an article this past week, the socialist zeal that propelled the kibbutz movement in its early days has largely now disappeared. A trend that began more than 40 years ago accelerated in the 1980's as kibbutzim lost many young members, and they failed to attract enough new members. Many of them were forced into bankruptcy, and the future of this movement was exceedingly dim if they continued with their old ways. The vast majority of the kibbutz that remained survived because they changed their ways. They expanded into industry and even real estate, they allowed a substantial degree of private ownership and private enterprise on the kibbutz, pay is no longer equal and is now significantly related to productivity, and parents and children live and eat together privately in their own homes.

    These changes may have prevented the Kibbutz movement from disappearing along with the many past Utopian experiments, but they did not prevent the kibbutz from becoming of little importance in the Israeli economy as Israel shifted toward privately owned high tech industry, and also toward privately owned farms, including cooperatives, for its much less important agricultural output. The transformation of the kibbutz movement from avowedly socialist to mainly capitalist shows clearly in microcosm what happened in socialist countries. Although even in their most extreme moments these countries were never as radical as the kibbutzim since children continued to live and eat with parents, socialist countries too tried to divorce individual productivity from individual rewards. They also believed that self-interest was a relic of capitalism, and that they could change human behavior to produce "a new socialist man" by abolishing private property and reorganizing society. Instead of the small scale of a kibbutz, countries like China and the Soviet Union tried to created socialism on an enormous scale. Moreover, and this is crucial, while members of any kibbutz voluntarily joined and could leave at will, Russians and Chinese had no choice about whether they wanted to work on collective farms or in government run enterprises, and they could leave only with extreme difficulty and at personal risk.

    Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.


    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Kibbutzim were not successful. Most failed, despite massive infusions of resources. The Becker and Posner Blog (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/20...sm-becker.html) had a great article on the history of the Kibbutzim and their eventual collapse, which is worth reading.
    The Transformation of the Kibbutz and the Rejection of Socialism-Becker

    Much has been written about the rejection of socialism by major powers like China and the former Soviet Union. But nowhere is the failure of socialism clearer than in the radical transformation of the Israeli kibbutz. The kibbutz movement started in the early twentieth century in what was then Palestine by Zionist immigrants from Europe who were idealistic and utopian. Capitalism, industrialization, and the conventional family repelled these immigrants. Kibbutzniks, as they were called, replaced these fundamental aspects of modern societies with collective agriculture where all property was owned by the kibbutz, where adults were treated equally regardless of productivity, and they were rotated every few months among the various tasks that had to be performed on a farm, such as milking cows, planting crops, serving meals, and so forth. They considered the close-knit family to be a creation of capitalism, and substituted for that family structure communal dining, a fair amount of promiscuity, and separate communal living for all children, who were allowed only brief visits with their parents each day.

    Several decades ago I spent a few days on such a traditional kibbutz located in the Negev desert, where I was a guest of married couple with two children. The husband was unusual for a kibbutznik because he was a trained nuclear physicist. They had a two room apartment-their two children lived in dormitories with the other children of the kibbutz- I met the children briefly on a couple of their daily visits to their parents. We dined communally on good food, and we watched a movie in the large dining hall afterwards. Although my host had much more advanced training than other residents, that only gave him the right to spend a few months each year working at a nuclear facility that used his skills. The rest of the time he rotated like everyone else among the numerous menial tasks on the kibbutz. He was well paid for his outside professional work, but he had to hand over his pay to the kibbutz, and received the same benefits as everyone else. He was not happy with this arrangement, but since he grew up on this kibbutz he lacked the resources to buy an apartment and car, and make the other outlays required to move off the kibbutz into an urban environment where he could get a well paying job. For at that time, rent controls destroyed the rental market for housing, so young couples lived with their parents until they saved enough, or their parents gave them the money, to buy their own place. However, in this case, their parents did not have their own apartments since they too lived on a kibbutz, and they lacked the financial resources to help their children.

    The kibbutz movement was motivated in part by the Marxian dictum of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". By abolishing capitalistic organization, the founders expected members to live in contentment and harmony, and to work for the common good. However, from what I was told and could observe during my brief visit, there was not much harmony-jealousies abounded of those who were only a little better off, including my host because he was allowed to spend some time working at his profession off the kibbutz. Anger was also felt toward those who were considered slackers since they clearly lived off the labor of others. Since everyone ate, worked, and socialized together, small differences were magnified, and became festering sores. Nor were the family arrangements any more satisfactory since parents missed their children, and visa versa.

    The kibbutz movement was very important in the creation of Israel, and in its early days of independence. Many military leaders came from the Kibbutz, perhaps because they were accustomed to communal living. A disproportionate number of the early political leaders and intellectuals also had a kibbutz background. But as the New York Times recognized in an article this past week, the socialist zeal that propelled the kibbutz movement in its early days has largely now disappeared. A trend that began more than 40 years ago accelerated in the 1980's as kibbutzim lost many young members, and they failed to attract enough new members. Many of them were forced into bankruptcy, and the future of this movement was exceedingly dim if they continued with their old ways. The vast majority of the kibbutz that remained survived because they changed their ways. They expanded into industry and even real estate, they allowed a substantial degree of private ownership and private enterprise on the kibbutz, pay is no longer equal and is now significantly related to productivity, and parents and children live and eat together privately in their own homes.

    These changes may have prevented the Kibbutz movement from disappearing along with the many past Utopian experiments, but they did not prevent the kibbutz from becoming of little importance in the Israeli economy as Israel shifted toward privately owned high tech industry, and also toward privately owned farms, including cooperatives, for its much less important agricultural output. The transformation of the kibbutz movement from avowedly socialist to mainly capitalist shows clearly in microcosm what happened in socialist countries. Although even in their most extreme moments these countries were never as radical as the kibbutzim since children continued to live and eat with parents, socialist countries too tried to divorce individual productivity from individual rewards. They also believed that self-interest was a relic of capitalism, and that they could change human behavior to produce "a new socialist man" by abolishing private property and reorganizing society. Instead of the small scale of a kibbutz, countries like China and the Soviet Union tried to created socialism on an enormous scale. Moreover, and this is crucial, while members of any kibbutz voluntarily joined and could leave at will, Russians and Chinese had no choice about whether they wanted to work on collective farms or in government run enterprises, and they could leave only with extreme difficulty and at personal risk.

    Utopian socialistic experiments like the kibbutz movement, and countries that tried to create large-scale efficient socialism, all failed for the same reasons. They did not realize that while the zeal of pioneers, and the result of revolutions, could sustain a collectivist and other-serving mentality for a short while, these could not be maintained as the pioneers died off or became disillusioned, and as circumstances became less revolutionary. Basically, they ignored the evidence of history that self interest and family orientation is not the product of capitalism, but is human nature due to selection from evolutionary pressure over billions of years. Sure, there is abundant altruism toward one's family, and some altruism toward others, and the latter might sustain a society for a brief time. But it shows a depressing ignorance of history to believe that a little propaganda and the enthusiasm of some leaders can organize an effective long-term society on the basis of any altruism and desires of mostl persons to help institutions, such as a kibbutz or a country, rather than themselves and those close to them.


    I read a similar article. But to categorically say that kibbutz failed I think is debateable. They still produce a great deal of agriculture and the model has also moved into other businesses.

    I realize that it's a favorite thing to try to brand such things as utopian or socialist and make examples of failure, but I don't think that all cooperative corporations are failures or need to be. I do think that we have to think differently about them based in our observations of kibbutzim, s a more transient model than some kind of utopian life's journey.

    I also observe that there are a great many black people i the US who have a cultural memory of a dream of land ownership. I think this also applies to what is now the fourth generation off the farm of white Americans as well. People have a need to work the land, call it home, and have a vested interest in it. I think a model could be devised which allows for those needs without destroying or breaking up the co-op as people come and go.

    We have a lot of Americans who would rather be pulling a plow than to trudge to a cube-farm every day. We despise the very concept of the office environment. But as a rule, there has been little effort to organize and tap that energy except by isolationist, religious fanatic, or survival groups.

    Such an experiment has tremendous upside potential and would cost a fraction of some of the stuff we have invested in as a nation. Not everything attracts corporate interest or Wall Street Investors because they place no value on domestic nation building and support for the social fabric.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    You sound like a modern hippie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I read a similar article. But to categorically say that kibbutz failed I think is debateable. They still produce a great deal of agriculture and the model has also moved into other businesses.

    I realize that it's a favorite thing to try to brand such things as utopian or socialist and make examples of failure, but I don't think that all cooperative corporations are failures or need to be. I do think that we have to think differently about them based in our observations of kibbutzim, s a more transient model than some kind of utopian life's journey.
    You cited the kibbutzim as a model. I pointed out that the model was not a successful one. I'm not the one who branded them as utopian and socialist, the kibbutzniks did that themselves. The vast majority of communal living arrangements end up failing, and if we don't make examples of them, then people will repeat those mistakes. Isn't it better to move past them and repeat success, rather than failure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I also observe that there are a great many black people i the US who have a cultural memory of a dream of land ownership. I think this also applies to what is now the fourth generation off the farm of white Americans as well. People have a need to work the land, call it home, and have a vested interest in it. I think a model could be devised which allows for those needs without destroying or breaking up the co-op as people come and go.

    We have a lot of Americans who would rather be pulling a plow than to trudge to a cube-farm every day. We despise the very concept of the office environment. But as a rule, there has been little effort to organize and tap that energy except by isolationist, religious fanatic, or survival groups.

    Such an experiment has tremendous upside potential and would cost a fraction of some of the stuff we have invested in as a nation. Not everything attracts corporate interest or Wall Street Investors because they place no value on domestic nation building and support for the social fabric.
    If people want to pull a plow badly enough, they'll go out and do it, but the reason that we have such large urban populations is that the reality of farm life (as opposed to the perception of it among people who've never lived it) pretty much sucks unless you are deeply committed to it. Farm work is physically demanding, messy, dangerous and dull. The kibbutzniks did it to survive in a new and hostile environment, but the vast majority of people who don't have to farm choose not to, especially after they've experienced it first hand.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,873
    It's a private charity, they can help whomever they want to help.


    Lots of charities bring people here legally for medical treatment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Unreconstructed Reb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Because we knowingly benefit from their illegal and legally disadvantaged status. I'm not a bleeding heart, it simply that we knowing allow these people to be here and work here. EVERYONE knows who they are and where they are and yet they are not rounded up and deported (regardless of who is President or who owns the farms).

    It would be easy to design a guest-worker program, but not as long as Kim Wong Ark continues to be the prevailing case law. It also isn't necessary to have guest farm workers when we have millions of unemployed people who have simply forgotten how to get to work in the fields. Again, I have yet to see a bus pull up in the St Pete or Tampa poverty zones to take workers to pick tomatoes or strawberries. Why?

    We need to allow farm workers to be independent contractors.
    We need to allow farm workers to work for cash.
    We need to exempt seasonal farm labor from Workers Comp laws (Single Payer health insurance would effectively kill Workers Comp)
    We need to prosecute farmers who hire illegals. Prosecute, like put in jail.

    I would also like to see a return to the land perhaps following the model of kibbutzim. We still have some large tracts of land in this country which are suitable for farming and which are going unused. Some of it is cheap or free now that dreams of tract homes have melted. Particularly in the East it would be nice to see land tied up in communal farming trusts so that farming isn't simply a way of diddling around until it's time to start building cracker boxes again.
    That is precisely bleeding heart liberal think. I'm sure that you also knowingly benefit from products/services that are imported from around the world provided by workers who are equally as disadvantaged as any border jumper in the US. Do you also feeeeeeeeeeeeeel obligated to provide medical care for those poor souls? And if not, why not?

    As far as rounding up and deporting these criminals, it's not my fault that .gov is derelict in it's duty and is not spending the money that it robs from me to perform it's lawful obligations. Your tomato pickers are here illegally and, not only does .gov not perform their constitutional duty, they are co-conspirators with you bleeding heart libtards who insist that these criminals are well fed, clothed, housed and schooled at the taxpayers expense and they get to stay here indefinitely because of that little anchor baby loophole.

    The Federation for American Immigration Reform ( http://www.fairus.org/issues/illegal-immigration ) estimates that border jumpers cost the American taxpayers more than $100 billion every year, all so that the bleeding heart liberals can have cheap tomatoes and feeeeeeeeeeel good about themselves and the liberal politicians can increase their base.

    So, don't hand me any of your bleeding heart liberal pablum about having an obligation to a bunch of criminals.
    "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    I just love when the Hippocratic Oath and National Policy clash...
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Timed Out
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    It's a private charity, they can help whomever they want to help.


    Lots of charities bring people here legally for medical treatment.
    That's a point everyone else seems to have missed. Nice job...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,093
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterS View Post
    That's a point everyone else seems to have missed. Nice job...
    "Why can't we be treated the same?" he asked while sitting in his hospital room. "Health care should be a human right, not a privilege. At least give us the chance to fight for our lives with dignity."
    He doesn't appear to be proselytising about private charities but if you say so, so be it. If he's talking about taxpayers paying for his illegal ass to get a new whatever...F him.

    Mariscal's treatment is far from over. The pills he'll need to make sure his body doesn't reject the new organ can cost upward of $10,000 a year for the rest of his life. And paying for those, just like the surgery, is complicated by his immigration status.
    Let's see who picks up the tab and where he resides when they do. Stay on top of it.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •