Free Immigration Part 2
By Nathan A. Barton © 2004

We’ve discussed in a previous article how objections to open borders, that is, freedom of travel, in the United States are motivated by tribalism (us versus them, or simply, a fear of strangers). Another major fear fueling objections to free travel is economic – greed (I don’t want them to have what I want). One person concerned about open immigration expressed it this way:

Immigration has, for the last 100+ years, anyway, been about providing cheap labor for big limited liability corporations. 

This fear has cropped up since the Know-Nothing Party of the early 1830s. It goes something like this: “Those dirty, disgusting, {insert ethnic food}-eatin’, foreign {insert derogatory name} are gonna take my [job /business/ farm/ majority vote] away from me, and we gotta stop ‘em!” The name of this “cheap labor” changes with the decades: Irish, Italians, Poles, Chinese, Southerners, Arkansawyers, Californians, Mexicans, etc.

Immigration has ALWAYS provided cheap labor, for obvious reasons.  Someone who doesn't speak the local language (or at least not well), who "doesn't know the territory", and who has marginal skills (by local standards) is ALWAYS cheaper: they are paying for the chance to learn.  But from the point of view of the immigrant, immigration is not about cheap labor, but about opportunity, freedom, and a better life. (Read the rest here)

Freedom In Jeopardy: A Case Against The EU And Internationalism
By D. Andrews

Freedom brings Happiness

All people desire freedom. We can only grow and learn to the degree that we are free. We can only know true fulfilment to the degree that we are free. It is only through being free that mankind can reach his potential. In short, we can only be happy to the degree that we are free, for those things which bring us true joy can only be obtained through the use of those faculties which freedom vouchsafes to us; and through experience we know that being forced or coerced is anathema to both the human spirit and human enterprise - loss of liberty brings only misery.

History is the Story of the Acceptance and Rejection of Freedom

And yet freedom is something we can easily take for granted - and just as easily lose. History's repeated sagas are evidence enough of this. Countless civilisations have come and gone, many of them destroyed because they surrendered their freedom little by little until it was all gone or taken from them. For a nation to lose its freedom there need be no military attack. It can be lost because the citizens of that nation have allowed themselves to be deceived through apathy, distractions, fear, ignorance and ebbing morals. (Read the rest here.)

Ignoring the Fear-Mongering about Outsourcing
by Sheldon Richman
The Future of Freedom Foundation

From the way some people talk in this political season, you’d think all the good jobs are being shipped to India, leaving nothing for Americans to do but flip hamburgers and shine shoes.

Don’t expect to hear sensible talk about economics in an election year. It doesn’t fit into sound bites. Demagogues have it easier, since their consciences don’t demand evidence for their allegations.

That said, there is reason to discount most of what is said to foment fear about "outsourcing," "offshoring," and the other scare words bandied about. The facts all run the other way.

Before getting to the details, let’s go over some basics. Trade is good. Why? Because it permits people to take advantage of specialization and the division of labor. As the great French economist Frédéric Bastiat wrote in the 19th century, the division of labor gives each individual access to products and services he couldn’t produce himself in a thousand years. You don’t need theory to see this. Think of all the products you used since waking this morning. How much of it could you have produced? Yet with even a modest income, you used a cornucopia of products that would have astounded the king of England a hundred years ago. (Read the rest here)

(Republished from North American Samizdat, Carl's website.)

Allow me to explain all those "<REDACTED>" facts. <REDACTED> at Verizon Communications didn't like the fact that I gave names, dates, and specifics of what they are doing to Hunter. So <REDACTED> pressured his union local to make him stop it.

Clearly someone at Verizon isn't real bright. Hunter doesn't own and operate this site; I, Carl Bussjaeger, own it. So in one sense, <REDACTED> is pressuring the wrong guy. But I guessed that from the lettter dated <REDACTED> from <REDACTED> firing Hunter without cause.

But Hunter is my friend, and when he contacted me about this, I agreed to play along. In my own twisted way. <REDACTED>, if you had left it alone, it would have drawn less attention that it is now.

As I understand it, but Hunter wasn't exactly specific (which suggests my understanding is correct), <REDACTED> thinks Hunter is posting this stuff himself, or passing company data to me in violation of their policies. I've already addressed the first possibility, but let me put it terms even a Verizon manager can understand: (Read the rest here)

Price of Liberty Forum

New Topic 03.31.04- Take a look and get involved.

Did you miss our last issue? Click Here for the Archives

The Lighter Side of PoL
Humor links and items to lighten your day. Send us your humor contributions!