Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5067)

Bloggingheads 03-23-2010 07:26 PM

Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 

sptm 03-23-2010 07:53 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Great way to establish ethos in an argument: assume the voice of God. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/269...3:30&out=03:50

ginger baker 03-23-2010 08:41 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
"Childishness?" really Josh? "pathology" even? Geez, cant say we didnt see that coming! Glad to see a good deal of bipartisan thumb-twiddling agreement with a "liberaltarian" advocate for single-payer! C'mon fellas, this is BhTV! Remember The Corn and York!

Yeah guys, the fault lines are moving, some good ol' "double movement," & cant wait to tax those rich folks when it does...and bury all that "liberaltarian" inverted state-capitalist-drivel once and for all!

JonIrenicus 03-23-2010 09:07 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Illegal Immigration is an issue that would hurt republicans in 2010. Some of the harshest anti illegal immigration proponents may stop supporting republicans who are more moderate.


Incidentally, I think there is a majority of republicans that are OK with some sort of guest worker program. And even a path to citizenship. Amnesty concerns are raised by a vocal population, but when it came to choosing a candidate, who did republicans choose in 2008? Rush was in favor of Romney who took a harder line on illegal immigration policy, as was Hannity.

Michael Medved was for McCain, but most talk show hosts were against him. Hugh Hewett was another who did not want McCain over Romney.


And in case you forgot his sentiments on allowing illegals to stay instead of insta deporting them all. take a look at when McCain was booed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-nVJGsTdKU


very vocal anti illegal immigration sentiments there (though more seemed to clap at McCains final comment)

And to those who puke out nonsense that this proves republicans are anti immigrant or are insane on the issue... who won the nomination? (sorry for the puke reference, but I get annoyed at stupid analysis, needed to throw in a peremptory put down to those who think so poorly and stupidly)



Not the hard liners on immigration status, McCain won. And though McCain lost the general election, he ran AHEAD of the republican brand compared to governors and congresspersons.


But it may be enough of a divide to diminish republican chances in the Fall, so that should make democrats happy.

Ocean 03-23-2010 09:08 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Good discussion!

I don't remember having heard so much agreement between these two diavloggers. It's encouraging to see that at least some political views can be reconciled with a promise of common good.

(Cautious) optimism was in the air!

Unit 03-23-2010 10:10 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
The biggest problem with healthcare reform is that it will have to close the border down to work (or as a result of political equilibrium), shutting out truly poor, desperate and uninsured people.

listener 03-23-2010 10:23 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sptm (Post 155578)
Great way to establish ethos in an argument: assume the voice of God. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/269...3:30&out=03:50

LOL! Wish I could activate that effect whenever I wanted to sound more authoritative. Not as cool of a superpower as flying or invisibility, but not bad.

ImmRefDotCom 03-23-2010 11:37 PM

Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
The type of labor that Brink Lindsey is supporting is massively subsidized. For instance, it's difficult for someone making $30,000 or less per year and who has two children in public schools to pay even a fraction of the school costs. If Brink Lindsay were a real libertarian, he'd make ending such subsidies a necessary precondition before amnesty. But, that's not what he's doing.

What he supports would also have to be done against the will of the vast majority of Americans, meaning that a libertarian is supporting force of some kind (with "force" broadly defined to include trickery, bribes, and the like).

What Brink Lindsay supports would also give the far-left and foreign countries even more power inside the U.S. And, the "guests" would have U.S. citizen children, making it very difficult to deport "guests" who won't leave.

As for his "moral claim", there are so many illegal aliens here not because the American public wants them to stay, but because our politicians are corrupt.

For all the facts of this issue that you will very rarely hear at bloggingheads, I've got thousands of posts about immigration matters going back to 2002.

listener 03-23-2010 11:45 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Thanks for this lucid, insightful conversation between two thoughtful, openminded and informed people. Although Cohen and Lindsey clearly disagreed in many areas, they didn't let their differences devolve into a contest between competing views, which would inevitably lead to the mental sclerosis that characterizes so much of our political discussion. Instead, they were able to recognize the commonality of many of their ideals and goals (basic human, dare I say "Christian" ideals that I believe most people would subscribe to) while at the same time acknowledging their different ideas on how to get there, without feeling the need to disparage the other person's perspective. Here, for example, were two men who felt secure enough within themselves to freely share with each other their perceptions of the strengths and drawbacks of the health care bill that was just passed, and not simply retreat into their respective rhetorical corners.

To me, this was BHTV at its best.

Ottorino 03-24-2010 02:44 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Bh.tv has a streaming problem. When I pause the video and go away for several minutes and come back, the video doesn't restart where I left off. I have to reload the whole page and find my place again. I don't encounter this problem on any other video site.

It's been this way for ages. Is anyone at Bh.tv aware of this?

sapeye 03-24-2010 03:44 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ottorino (Post 155630)
Bh.tv has a streaming problem. When I pause the video and go away for several minutes and come back, the video doesn't restart where I left off. I have to reload the whole page and find my place again. I don't encounter this problem on any other video site.

It's been this way for ages. Is anyone at Bh.tv aware of this?

It is frustrating, but you don't have to reload the whole page. Just note where the marker is on the time line, then click on play entire diavlog. When the sound begins drag the marker to the position where you had stopped listening.

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 03:50 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 155587)
Good discussion!

I don't remember having heard so much agreement between these two diavloggers. It's encouraging to see that at least some political views can be reconciled with a promise of common good.

(Cautious) optimism was in the air!

Yes, I want liberaltarian pony, too!

In all seriousness, it saddens me that Brink's basic idea got such short shrift. Glad to see he's got a sense of humor ("Generalissimo Francesco Franco still dead!") about that, though. It will be interesting to see if his premise can be made to work on the issue of CIR.*

And here's another reason why I like Brink: best four seconds' worth of advice I've heard in a while.

==========

* Is that a good enough abbreviation for Comprehensive Immigration Reform? As an initialization (pronounce each letter) it's okay, but I'm afraid people will treat as an acronym and pronounce it "cur."

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 03:52 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Bzzzt! We have a Lambchop in our midst!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmRefDotCom (Post 155604)
What he supports would also have to be done against the will of the vast majority of Americans, ...


bjkeefe 03-24-2010 04:01 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JonIrenicus (Post 155586)
And to those who puke out nonsense that this proves republicans are anti immigrant or are insane on the issue... who won the nomination?

I agree with your general point that immigration reform is not an issue that cleanly divides along Dem/Rep lines. In fact, I look forward with interest to see how things shake out, should this become THE next big issue. I also agree with your other main point that the GOP as it is currently configured could well be hurt by the stance they seem most likely to choose; i.e., whatever Obama proposes, oppose it, demonically.

However, it is puking out nonsense to say that McCain won the nomination because he was less "anti-immigrant" than the other candidates. If you want a still simplistic but more accurate explanation, try this: he won because he was a smarter politician, and a good gambler, and he bet correctly that his chief contenders would have the effect of canceling each other out, either in a given primary or in successive primaries, as they attempted to outdo each other on who most loved Jesus and who most hated the terrorists. Pretending that it's a binary choice for a moment: If anything, he secured the nomination in spite of his record on immigration reform, if my memory of what the louder voices on the activist right were saying in 2008 is anything to go by.

listener 03-24-2010 04:08 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sapeye (Post 155634)
It is frustrating, but you don't have to reload the whole page. Just note where the marker is on the time line, then click on play entire diavlog. When the sound begins drag the marker to the position where you had stopped listening.

Yes, I've noticed this problem too. It's a bit of a pain, but sapeye's solution is at least a workaround.

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 04:12 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ottorino (Post 155630)
[...] Is anyone at Bh.tv aware of this?

Yes, it is a known issue.

To sapeye's suggestion, I'll add a variant, which I always use (being unable to sit still for an hour, usually): as sapeye suggests, note the time displayed before you click Play again, and if the video just goes back to nothing, go up to the location bar in your browser and type in the time where you'd like to resume. So, for example, you might see something like this:

Quote:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/26945
Add to the end of the line so it looks, say, like this:

Quote:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/26945?in=31:15
Then press your Enter key. The page will reload, and the diavlog will restart where you specified.



Note: If you want a time < 10:00, use a leading zero; e.g.,

Quote:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/26945?in=08:15
And if you only want to specify to the nearest minute, you still have to specify the seconds; e.g;

Quote:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/26945?in=31:00
A bit tedious, but could be worse.

(Also, there's always the option to download the video file, and then watch that.)

listener 03-24-2010 04:13 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 155637)
Bzzzt! We have a Lambchop in our midst!

I think there should be a DMV-style points system for Lambchop violations (after all, it's what the American People would want...).

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 04:16 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 155641)
I think there should be a DMV-style points system for Lambchop violations (after all, it's what the American People would want...).

Good idea. Suggest reformulating your proposal slightly:

Quote:

There should be a DMV-style points system for Lambchop violations, because that's what the American People demand.

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 04:23 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ginger baker (Post 155583)
Glad to see a good deal of bipartisan thumb-twiddling agreement with a "liberaltarian" advocate for single-payer! C'mon fellas, this is BhTV! Remember The Corn and York!

I don't know if you're aware, but the reason you've never seen bipartisan thumb-twiddling on Pinkercorn is because both diavloggers lost their thumbs in a tragic encounter with a thresher. That is why we created this account, in memoriam.

Don't believe me? Have you ever seen either of them give a thumbs-up? All right then.

But really, why do you hate ten-fingered people?

listener 03-24-2010 04:29 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Quote:

There should be a DMV-style points system for Lambchop violations, because that's what the American People demand.
Friendly amendment accepted.

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 04:30 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by listener (Post 155644)
Friendly amendment accepted.

Yes, never hedge when you're the voice of 300 million.

listener 03-24-2010 04:36 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 155646)
Yes, never hedge when you're the voice of 300 million.

You betcha! ;)

ledocs 03-24-2010 09:43 AM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
I strongly disagree with Cohen’s contention about the childishness of those who made the public option into a matter of principle. I don’t see how this issue can be separated from the general question of how what passes for the Left in the US is supposed to exert leverage within the Democratic Party. Put another way, how is the Left, or the Progressive Wing, whatever, going to avoid being taken entirely for granted? The only way is to draw lines in the sand, they have to at least appear to be willing to walk away from the table. So it seems to me that this behavior is a logical consequence of the structure of the US two-party system, of its lack of any system of proportional election and of its requirement for huge amounts of money to finance successful campaigns. And I think it’s really sort of stupid, from the point of view of a serious political science, for Cohen to say what he said in the way that he said it.

On the other hand, I actually agree with virtually everything Lindsey said (but I'm only halfway through), but the health-care proposal he favors, “single-payer catastrophic coverage” in the first instance, is not libertarian, but that’s fine. When I say that I agree, I don’t strongly disagree with this. Since it becomes clear towards the end of the first half of the dlog that what Lindsey is mostly worried about is Medicare and our inability “to say no to old people,” and presumably about the generational problem this poses in a pay-as-you-go financing system, I agree with him entirely about the problem. So I infer that Lindsey’s single-payer catastrophic coverage would not include the last year or two of life after age 70 or so. Lindsey needs to flesh out what he has in mind more clearly. My suspicion is that he has not thought the whole thing through. Because if we have a very clear system of forcing the less well-off or less prudent to die earlier than the richer or more prudent savers, that’s going to be a difficult system to implement and sustain. On the other hand, I do agree that forcing the working to pay for what is threatening to become very expensive care for lives of very poor quality does not seem just or ethical.

One needs to look at the statistics. My own mother is now in a situation that will cost upwards of $200,000 per year to sustain, maybe more than $300,000. She’s 87. She’s had three serious strokes, she’s on about twelve prescription medications, she needs help to get around, because she is at constant risk of falling. She’s got diabetes, myeloma, shingles, and mild dementia. She has an attendant 12 hours per day right now. If she did not have the money and were reliant on public financing, first of all, I don’t know what would happen to her. If society stopped treating her, and it were up to her children to finance the care, I don’t know what we would do or what she would want us to do. The point is, this is a gut-wrenching economic and ethical problem. There is no good answer.

conncarroll 03-24-2010 10:57 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
I love Brink but he consistently drives me crazy. GOPers did make a strong case against the individual mandate. They brought it up on the floor, on TV, online, and in newspaper op-eds.
So did we at The Heritage Foundation.
But the media and many independents just understand backroom deals better. That is why those arguments became such a focus. They sold well.

And don't get me started on Obamacare as a Heritage plan. When exactly did Heritage advocate expanding Medicaid by 16 million people? When exactly did Heritage advocate for a national health czar empowered to decide what is and isn't insurance for everyone?
The Heritage Foundation fought Bush's Medicare Part D plan every step of the way. Heritage products were banned from Tom DeLay's office.
The day after Medicare Part D passed Heritage called for its repeal.
You don't have to like The Heritage Foundation, but stop misrepresenting its positions.

Don Zeko 03-24-2010 11:37 AM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
In fairness to Brink, I read him as saying that the ACA is structurally similar to what Heritage proposed in 1993, in that it uses the regulation+mandate+subsidies model of getting to universal coverage. I'm not familiar with the details of Heritage's 1993 proposal, but it seems to me that the differences you're pointing out are relatively minor, i.e. the kinds of things that could have been changed had Republicans been interested in negotiating. And even if he's mischaracterizing Heritage (something I have an easier time ignoring since I don't work for them), his basic point is pretty obviously sound: Obamacare would have been seen as the (very) Conservative alternative in 1993 and would have been rejected outright by much of the Left. That said, I could easily be wrong about the nature of Heritage's 1993 plan. If so, why don't you set me straight, Conn?

Now, I've got my own issues with what Brink is saying here, but they're going to wait for a later post.

look 03-24-2010 12:01 PM

Re: Is Brink Lindsey a real libertarian?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 155668)
I strongly disagree with Cohen’s contention about the childishness of those who made the public option into a matter of principle. I don’t see how this issue can be separated from the general question of how what passes for the Left in the US is supposed to exert leverage within the Democratic Party. Put another way, how is the Left, or the Progressive Wing, whatever, going to avoid being taken entirely for granted? The only way is to draw lines in the sand, they have to at least appear to be willing to walk away from the table. So it seems to me that this behavior is a logical consequence of the structure of the US two-party system, of its lack of any system of proportional election and of its requirement for huge amounts of money to finance successful campaigns. And I think it’s really sort of stupid, from the point of view of a serious political science, for Cohen to say what he said in the way that he said it.

On the other hand, I actually agree with virtually everything Lindsey said (but I'm only halfway through), but the health-care proposal he favors, “single-payer catastrophic coverage” in the first instance, is not libertarian, but that’s fine. When I say that I agree, I don’t strongly disagree with this. Since it becomes clear towards the end of the first half of the dlog that what Lindsey is mostly worried about is Medicare and our inability “to say no to old people,” and presumably about the generational problem this poses in a pay-as-you-go financing system, I agree with him entirely about the problem. So I infer that Lindsey’s single-payer catastrophic coverage would not include the last year or two of life after age 70 or so. Lindsey needs to flesh out what he has in mind more clearly. My suspicion is that he has not thought the whole thing through. Because if we have a very clear system of forcing the less well-off or less prudent to die earlier than the richer or more prudent savers, that’s going to be a difficult system to implement and sustain. On the other hand, I do agree that forcing the working to pay for what is threatening to become very expensive care for lives of very poor quality does not seem just or ethical.

One needs to look at the statistics. My own mother is now in a situation that will cost upwards of $200,000 per year to sustain, maybe more than $300,000. She’s 87. She’s had three serious strokes, she’s on about twelve prescription medications, she needs help to get around, because she is at constant risk of falling. She’s got diabetes, myeloma, shingles, and mild dementia. She has an attendant 12 hours per day right now. If she did not have the money and were reliant on public financing, first of all, I don’t know what would happen to her. If society stopped treating her, and it were up to her children to finance the care, I don’t know what we would do or what she would want us to do. The point is, this is a gut-wrenching economic and ethical problem. There is no good answer.

You are so deep.

Very sorry to hear about your mom, she sounds like a real fighter.

As far as 70 being an imagined cut-off for catastrophic coverage, that seems really too young. 70 is the new 60, doncha know? As far as the very old and very prematurely born, cut-offs will need to be made, I think.

conncarroll 03-24-2010 02:46 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 155682)
And even if he's mischaracterizing Heritage (something I have an easier time ignoring since I don't work for them), his basic point is pretty obviously sound: Obamacare would have been seen as the (very) Conservative alternative in 1993 and would have been rejected outright by much of the Left.

I don't pretend to know what the left would or would not have rejected in 1993. What I do know is that the individual mandate has completely failed to control costs in Massachusetts so I am a bit confused as to why the left says it will reduce them now.

AemJeff 03-24-2010 02:54 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 155711)
I don't pretend to know what the left would or would not have rejected in 1993. What I do know is that the individual mandate has completely failed to control costs in Massachusetts so I am a bit confused as to why the left says it will reduce them now.

The individual mandate isn't a cost-control, it's a funding mechanism intended to compensate for the effects of preventing practices like recission and refusing to treat pre-existing conditions.

Don Zeko 03-24-2010 03:01 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 155711)
I don't pretend to know what the left would or would not have rejected in 1993. What I do know is that the individual mandate has completely failed to control costs in Massachusetts so I am a bit confused as to why the left says it will reduce them now.

The Mandate isn't the part of reform that's supposed to control costs. Things like the Medicare Commission, the cadillac tax, money for electronic medical records, and various delivery system reforms are designed to do that. This is the area where there might be something to criticisms of the bill's size and complexity, although I still wind up disagreeing.

You basically have two distinct sets of policies that are being taped together in one bill for political reasons: the cost controls, and the elements that provide universality. While you get really bad policy if you start stripping either subsidies, the Mandate, or regulation of the insurance industry, if you strip out cost-control measures you get something that will work for now, but is unsustainable in the long term. The Massachusetts plan had universality, but didn't include significant cost-control measures, on the theory that universality would create the political groundwork for eventual cost control, while the ACA went ahead and included unpopular elements designed to control costs.

Don Zeko 03-24-2010 03:03 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 155714)
The individual mandate isn't a cost-control, it's a funding mechanism intended to compensate for the effects of preventing practices like recission and refusing to treat pre-existing conditions.

I wouldn't describe it as a funding mechanism; it's supposed to remedy the moral hazard created by Guaranteed Issue.

Don Zeko 03-24-2010 03:04 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Conn, I'm still interested in hearing someone with easier access to the inner workings of the Heritage Foundation describe their alternative plan from 1993. I've only ever read brief descriptions of it, and I'd like to be more confidant when I say it's similar to ACA, or to be corrected.

AemJeff 03-24-2010 03:12 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 155717)
I wouldn't describe it as a funding mechanism; it's supposed to remedy the moral hazard created by Guaranteed Issue.

That's a fair description. It does raise capital by broadening the class of people paying into the system, either directly or by IRS penalties. I'm assuming that's going to be a significant revenue stream.

Don Zeko 03-24-2010 03:19 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
I guess the distinction I would make is between money going to the Gov't or Insurers. When I heard "funding mechanism" I thought "way for the gov't to finance the subsidies," which isn't exactly what it does.

ledocs 03-24-2010 03:50 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Forget about the Heritage Foundation, 1993. I want to hear what Conn Carroll says about financing care for outlier premature babies and for the old and very infirm, since I think he's a "death panel" guy. Either there will be social financing for these expenses, or there will not. If there is not, people will get the care they can afford privately, and we see how that works out. Obviously, this is built into the system today and is much of the reason that the life expectancy of black American males is much lower than that of white males, even after removing premature deaths from crime and suicide from the equation. If there is social financing, then, as a practical matter, there will be rationing, but that's something Conn Carroll appears to be unwilling to accept. So one strategy is to have these very unequal outcomes based upon "market" allocation of resources and hope that no one notices. But, mirabile dictu, the Democrats did notice. Pelosi, with all her millions, noticed. (I'm really proud of you, Nancy. Pelosi is our congressperson. Northern California has produced Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi.)

"Look," the rationing will have to be based upon some combination of age and condition criteria, I would think. Seventy might be a reasonable cutoff, if treatments for the conditions in question are expensive enough. The conditions are much more important than the age. There will probably need to be condition-based actuarial tables, different cutoffs for heart bypasses than for leukemia treatments, and different cutoffs when conditions get combined. And thanks for your good wishes.

dieter 03-24-2010 04:34 PM

Guest worker program? Doesn't work without enforcement either.
 
There seems to be the intention to somehow solve the illegal immigration issue without enforcement. This cannot be done.
The guest worker program would have to be enforced as well. Why would anybody, who is willing to transgress strict immigration rules, all of a sudden
abide by more lenient rules and self deport on time?

If the Americans are not willing to regularily check employers or immigrant neighbourhoods and round illegals up to throuw them out, they should simply open the border altogether under some kind of North American Union.

The middle ground of amnesty and non-enforcement would simply result in the buildup of the same kind of situation with millions of non-persons or pariahs 20 years down the road.

jimM47 03-24-2010 05:20 PM

Ptolemy of Alexandria
 
This comment has no other purpose than to express happiness that somewhere someone made an awesome epicycles joke, and that someone was Joshua Cohen.

bjkeefe 03-24-2010 05:27 PM

Re: Guest worker program? Doesn't work without enforcement either.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dieter (Post 155738)
There seems to be the intention to somehow solve the illegal immigration issue without enforcement. This cannot be done.
The guest worker program would have to be enforced as well. Why would anybody, who is willing to transgress strict immigration rules, all of a sudden
abide by more lenient rules and self deport on time?

I believe this point was addressed in the diavlog, when mention was made first of the flow back to the old country of European immigrants and their offspring, and second, of largely Mexican immigrants going back to Mexico (or back and forth) until the rules changed in 2006(?) and it became seen as too risky to go outside the borders of the US if one ever hoped to return. So, it appears from those examples that not a whole lot of enforcement would be needed to deal with the sort of person who might be interested in a guest worker option -- he or she likely wants to cycle in and out anyway.

claymisher 03-24-2010 05:59 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Great news Brink! You wanted states to be able to experiment with the health care system? There's legislation that allows for states to get waivers if they maintain universality. It's sponsored by Wyden and Kucinich. It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it was in the bill that became law yesterday.

You're welcome!

claymisher 03-24-2010 06:13 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
I think Brink's big problem is that most of the policy insights libertarians had to offer have been folded into state-of-the-art liberalism. Up-to-date liberals are perfectly happy with market means to achieve progressive ends. A lot of us are hoping the health care exchange creates space for positive innovation. We're rooting for charter schools to work. We made the transition from the public housing projects to vouchers back in the 1990s. We hate corporate welfare more than anybody.

The other part of libertarianism, defending the rights of property and wealth, doesn't have that much to offer liberals, and Brink is smart to not talk about it.

Was it Mark Kleiman who asked Brink, "We'll be happy to make some deals with libertarians when you've got the votes. How many do you have?"

As for all the moaning about the cost of health care and the threat of higher taxes to innovation and prosperty, I see a few ways out of that: let sick people suffer, make care cheaper, or find other stuff to cut. I'd start with the corporate welfare and the defense budget before worrying that people are too healthy.

wovenstrap 03-24-2010 07:06 PM

Re: Stark Raving Insane Edition (Joshua Cohen & Brink Lindsey)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 155636)
Yes, I want liberaltarian pony, too!

In all seriousness, it saddens me that Brink's basic idea got such short shrift. Glad to see he's got a sense of humor ("Generalissimo Francesco Franco still dead!") about that, though. It will be interesting to see if his premise can be made to work on the issue of CIR.*

And here's another reason why I like Brink: best four seconds' worth of advice I've heard in a while.

==========

* Is that a good enough abbreviation for Comprehensive Immigration Reform? As an initialization (pronounce each letter) it's okay, but I'm afraid people will treat as an acronym and pronounce it "cur."

Yeah, this was a pleasure to listen to. At one point I was annoyed because Brink seemed to accept the need to deal with pre-existing conditions but rejected the need for a mandate. I was all ready to post something to the effect that you probably can't fix that problem without the mandate -- but then Brink said it himself a little while later! Glory be.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.