RC> Interestingly, the entirety of the globe's population could
RC> reside in the state of Texas and the population density would
RC> be slightly less than New York City. And even Mike wouldn't
RC> have any grounds for objection - he believes in free
RC> immigration.
TE> How about it Janada, the Megalopolis of Texas?  Good idea or
JO>Ack! Ack! Ptewey! We're already in deep guano, even though illegal
JO>immigration is supposed to be just that...ILLEGAL! What with Owlgore
JO>pushing through the papers of thousands (without checking their
JO>records!) just before the election, and NAFTA...it's just awful. The
JO>influx of drugs is higher than ever. I can only imagine the money
JO>that we are paying out directly or indirectly. Even if they aren't
JO>getting an actual check from the fed, it still costs the taxpayer a
JO>fortune in loss from criminal activity, then to process and house
JO>them if they are caught. It's bound to cost over time (maybe a
JO>*long* time) when the illegals or almost legals vote in liberal
JO>politicians. Our roads are a NAFTA-induced nightmare too.
  
       An interesting point came to my attention last week during a
Cato Institute discussion about the "Drug War".  It was pointed out
that about 3.4% of the population used drugs before they began being
classified as illegal in the late 1800's.  Oddly enough, by the
mid-60's, with several decades of prohibition, about 3.4% of the
population used illegal drugs.  In the late 1970's it was decided that
we must "declare war" on drugs and the Drug War began in earnest with
about 3.4% of the population using drugs.  Now, two decades, countless
billions of dollars, and millions of prisoners later, how about that,
about 3.4% of the population uses illegal drugs.
       I would suggest, sooner or later, we are going to have to admit
that no matter what we do, no matter how much money we waste, no matter
how many of our civil liberties we give up, and no matter how many
otherwise innocent people we put in prison, a certian percentaged of
the population is going to use drugs.  Nothing we have done will alter
this.  The people that are opposed to using drugs will remain opposed,
and never use them, and the people who want to use them will continue
to do so.  For all the good intentions, all the honest efforts, all the
reasoned arguments, the whole thing is a total waste.
 
       Relative to immigration, unless we have a desire to preserve the
integrity of the welfare state and it's social programs, not claiming
myself these have any integrity to begin with, what is the advantage to
restricting immigration?  If those coming are coming to work, as Adam
Smith said, "expanding markets", all they do is make life better for
all of us as Smith pointed out, "expand wealth exponentially".  
       One of the greatest scams of the twentith century is how social
liberals have duped conservatives into defending the welfare state for
them by convincing them to abandon our traditional stance of having an
open immigration policy.  This position, initiated by unions around the
turn of the century, has now been adopted by conservatives who,
rationally, ought be more inclined to support allowing the marketplace
to regulate immigration than turning to government.
 
        As far as NAFTA goes it is a horrible deal, but not because it
opens up trade.  Free trade is not an enemy of the consumer or the
businessman, but because of all the trappings of government attached
and expenses incurred.  To initiate a free trade agreement we should
simply open the borders to trade and knock down all the barriers.  If
the Polish government wishes to take money out of the pockets of Polish
citizens to give American citizens a deal on steel...hey, what a deal.
Fearing free trade is fearing our ability to compete which we should
never fear and if we find we are working at a disadvantage because the
ball and chain of big government makes us uncompetitive, then rather
than expanding it's powers to build walls, we ought throttle back on
it's size and cost so we can compete.
 
TE> not? Of course Texas would have to change it's state animal
TE> from the sheep to the pigeon.
JO>Yep, we get sheered enough as it is. Although I always figured our
JO>state animal was the longhorn steer...even if sometimes it seems a
JO>bit light on the longhorn and heavy on the steer part ...kinda leaves
JO>us short on defense and/or testosterone. (sigh)
 
        I always tended to prefer the armadillo meself...
 
  
                                     Mike Angwin
                           (LP candidate, Texas Attorney General)
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------