So it's all about the productivity of the herd to the ownership and political classes. GDP, those measures of herd output. His argument is one completely unconcerned about the individual.
Many individuals are obligated to pay the costs, the taxes for the various local and state welfare programs, various federal, state, county, and city programs. The additional public schools, the increased road capacity, the greater number of government employees and their generous pensions, the tax that is inflation, etc and so on as costs are socialized. Costs that otherwise would be on those who arrive, costs to their employers are transferred to net taxpayers. It's a collectivist argument that the whole is better off. But what of the individual who is not? Like all collectivist arguments is one of the benefits to some, perhaps even the many, outweigh the expenses imposed on others, ideally to the collectivist, the few.
The same argument that the existing 'wall' prevented some GDP gains could also be argued wrt elimination of any of the government programs and services that aid immigrants.
When those individuals who have a net negative result, those who are worse off, those who pay more in taxes than they benefit in low prices from the cheap(er) labor speak up they are derided. A physical wall may not work but it is a manifestation of a reaction to a government created problem and libertarians who use collectivist arguments to oppose it aren't helping things. How can one counter a collectivist argument of the whole is better off through the imposition of expense on some once accepting it on this issue?
So it's all about the productivity of the herd to the ownership and political classes. GDP, those measures of herd output. His argument is one completely unconcerned about the individual.
ReplyDeleteMany individuals are obligated to pay the costs, the taxes for the various local and state welfare programs, various federal, state, county, and city programs. The additional public schools, the increased road capacity, the greater number of government employees and their generous pensions, the tax that is inflation, etc and so on as costs are socialized. Costs that otherwise would be on those who arrive, costs to their employers are transferred to net taxpayers. It's a collectivist argument that the whole is better off. But what of the individual who is not? Like all collectivist arguments is one of the benefits to some, perhaps even the many, outweigh the expenses imposed on others, ideally to the collectivist, the few.
The same argument that the existing 'wall' prevented some GDP gains could also be argued wrt elimination of any of the government programs and services that aid immigrants.
When those individuals who have a net negative result, those who are worse off, those who pay more in taxes than they benefit in low prices from the cheap(er) labor speak up they are derided. A physical wall may not work but it is a manifestation of a reaction to a government created problem and libertarians who use collectivist arguments to oppose it aren't helping things. How can one counter a collectivist argument of the whole is better off through the imposition of expense on some once accepting it on this issue?