American Excess

[lookout123]

Believe "driving down the quality of public education" would be addressed with, hmmm... paying taxes. And they wouldn't be uninsured either if hmmm... they could get a license and insurance.

See here is the thing - what you are talking about are the benefits of having legal status. If they have all of the benefit of legal immigrants but didn't have to go through any of the hassle - why would anyone choose to go the legal route?

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by lookout123

See here is the thing - what you are talking about are the benefits of having legal status. If they have all of the benefit of legal immigrants but didn't have to go through any of the hassle - why would anyone choose to go the legal route?

You presume none of them want to law abiding. I would argue most want to be law abiding, but life has dealt them a set of circumstances where the best solution is to be an illigal immigrant. Given a chance to be legal, most would. Why are there so many applications to become legal immigrants? Not because people want to pay taxes, but because they don't want to be illegal. They don't want to worry about being arrested. They want to be able to get medical insurance and go see the same doctor instead of waiting for 12 hours at the ER to be treated for a cold, or to actually have prenatal care, or to recieve regular care for high blood pressure... And if they become legal, chances are they can get a better paying job, instead of being limited to employers that will higher illegals.

[DanaC]

I'm reminded of the line from one of the star wars movies, "you must understand that you form a symbiotic relationship".

I think that when we start making decisions that are in the best interest of all concerned that we find the most success.

Very well put Joe.

[piercehawkeye45]

First, not all drug dealers are like the stereotypical inner city version. They are not all immoral people who will kill people if screwed over and try to get people hooked on hard drugs. The reason many get into drug dealing is because they can make good money off it, they get access to pot, and it is a pretty easy job. It is much better than working at McDonald's for 60 hours a week and earning a fourth of the pay. A perfectly rational decision for the situation they are in.

The drug dealers I do know both got into for the above reasons. They only deal pot so they do not try to get people hooked into harder drugs for profit and they will not come after you if you screw them over, they blame themselves for being stupid. Both of these people are some of the nicest and smartest people I've met just making the best of an opportunity to get some extra cash and not slave away in a typical lower class job.

I would argue that the stereotypical inner city drug dealer is immoral but still making a rational decision. But I would also consider being a business executive at a tobacco companies immoral but a rational decision. In both situations you are trying to get people hooked on a drugs that could very well kill you with deceptive tactics for the sole purpose of making money off you. The only difference between the two is that the system favors business executives over drug dealers.


For your situation, it is harder to decide and the rationality and morality is subjective. If you broke a law, would you being hurting anyone or screwing anyone over? If you are, then it probably would be considered immoral. If it is just a bullshit law like the illegalization of marijuana, then it probably could be considered justifiable but I would have to actually see the situation to give my personal moral preference on it (I am not asking for the situation, just stating that fact).

Rationality is harder. It is easy for the drug dealing and illegal migrant scenario because there are two extremes. Would you rather work your entire life as a low skill low pay worker that has to do a lot of manual labor and constantly worrying about even basic economic stability or would you rather get a good paying job with little manual labor and never have to worry about economic stability if you break a few laws and maybe even commit some (very) immoral acts. Then you have to take in social forces into consideration. The inner city does not value hard work as much as many other areas so the pride in working hard and earning what you get in the typical sense is not a strong factor as getting an easy buck through hustling. For them, drug dealing is perfectly rational and I agree.

I already explained my stance on illegal migration with rationality.

For your situation it is much harder because you probably have some sense of economic stability even though I'm sure you do not feel economic freedom. You still are worrying about bills and other factors but not as far as feeding your kids or putting a roof over there head (this is an assumption that you are in a typical middle class situation). Is going to jail worth that risk? I would say no and I think you would agree with that, hence why you have no broken the law. I think you said you have children and going to jail would be very bad in your situation unlike someone who sells drugs who usually do not have children any many, being black, know that 1/3 of their race go to jail anyways. The social factors that affect you for making these decisions are not the same that affect them so it is expected that there will be some overlap on what is considered rational and sometimes morality. This is another example of how middle class solutions do not always work for the lower class and how lower class solutions do not always work for the middle class.

[lookout123]

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A feeling that doing the "wrong" thing is easier and "not that unusual" doesn't make it right.

I happen to have had more than a passing knowledge about the drug industry. First hand knowledge, not something from a book or a sociology class. So let's take your example. You've established that it is ok for someone to choose to sell pot rather than get a legal job because it is easier, makes more money, and it's just a silly law anyway. If I, with my knowledge and resources, choose to leave my job tomorrow and work strictly in the arena of marijuana I could certainly double or even triple my income practically overnight. I could do this with little risk of being caught, certainly no risk of jail, and the only real risk I would be taking would be loss of capital. Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

If it makes it easier let's put it in "reality". I can take a $20,000 investment today, scrub it so that there is no connection to me, and turn that $20K into approximately $50K in a month. Would that be right or wrong for me to do?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong.

That is, however, not the same as legal and illegal.

Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

You would be a criminal, by definition. The other two questions (right or wrong, and worthy of punishment) are more up in the air.

[lookout123]

Not so much HM. If I knowingly broke the law I am wrong for doing so and worthy of punishment. Weighing the odds and deciding it is worth the risk doesn't make my decision right or any less worthy of punishment.

And before anyone goes off the deepend and says "what about Rosa Parks???" With the thinly veiled "you're a racist" left hanging, I'll answer. She knowingly and boldly broke the law and made herself worthy of punishment. She took the risk of very real punishment with the higher ideal of drawing attention to a law she felt was immoral and wrong. I happen to agree with her cause and am glad she chose to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that she did break the law and risked real punishment.

I've yet to meet an illegal who says "I illegally crossed the border in broad daylight in front of witnesses so that I might challenge and rectify this social injustice that you call legal immigration". They sneek in, they hide their status, and they make no political or social point. Far different than the high-minded civil rights movement. So yes, they intentionally broke the law, that puts them in the wrong and worthy of the punishment allowed by that law.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Your entire argument and apparently view of life is based on the shifting sands of moral relativeism. If something is right, it is right. If it is wrong, it is wrong. A feeling that doing the "wrong" thing is easier and "not that unusual" doesn't make it right.

Yes, I a do have some influences of moral relativism but I do this for deeper reasons. Because of this I have to ask this question, why do you consider dealing marijuana morally worse than getting a job recognized by the government? I personally think it is morally wrong to illegalize marijuana so someone breaking the law is not immoral, but not moral either. Keep in mind, this also coming from someone whose perspective is that social laws, while very important, are not all powerful. I think your perspective involves putting social laws higher up than me on importance, which might cause some differences.

If I, with my knowledge and resources, choose to leave my job tomorrow and work strictly in the arena of marijuana I could certainly double or even triple my income practically overnight. I could do this with little risk of being caught, certainly no risk of jail, and the only real risk I would be taking would be loss of capital. Would my decision to deal drugs be right? Or would I be a criminal worthy of punishment?

You should be punished if caught because it is a law even if you disagree with it. The problem is that I see the law of illegal marijuana as an unjustifiable law so that means breaking an unjustifiable law isn't immoral. I wouldn't say it is moral, but it wouldn't be immoral. Drug dealing is just the result of the capitalist system. There is a demand for drugs but no legal supply for illegal drugs. That means, to meet the demand, drug dealers will have to break the law to meet the demand and make money. If drugs were legalized, the demand for an underground drug system would go away, making it a reaction of the drug laws. I am not advocating that it is moral to fulfill the free market demand, but that there is a flaw within the system and it is rational for people that are willing to take the risk of being caught to gain profit off this flaw. Like I said earlier, assuming we are talking about safe drug trafficking, I still wouldn't call it moral because you are breaking a law, but I wouldn't call it immoral because that law is unjustifiable.

If it makes it easier let's put it in "reality". I can take a $20,000 investment today, scrub it so that there is no connection to me, and turn that $20K into approximately $50K in a month. Would that be right or wrong for me to do?

Honestly, I know shit about investing so I don't know what technique you are talking about.

And before anyone goes off the deepend and says "what about Rosa Parks???"

I've yet to meet an illegal who says "I illegally crossed the border in broad daylight in front of witnesses so that I might challenge and rectify this social injustice that you call legal immigration".

You are getting into morality levels. Rosa Parks would be considered at a level five stage of morality because she purposely broke the law to make a point about how it is unjustifiable. The illegal immigrants would probably be at a level two stage because they know illegally crossing the border is illegal and "technically" wrong because of it but they they are doing it because they need money. I want to make this clear, just because someone demonstrates stage two (you can make an argument for three but thats makes it more complicated and doesn't change much) morality, it doesn't mean they are still in the pre-conventional stage, but that they are probably forced into it. That is the main factor with me.

But you do bring up a good point. Technically it is immoral to cross the border illegally because immigration laws are not unjust, from my perspective at least, but that doesn't mean that these people are immoral people, just that they are forced into making a decision of breaking a law and doing something immoral and letting their family starve, which can be seen as immoral from other perspectives.

I agree with you that most make the decision because they are choosing self-interest, not seeing their family starve, over breaking the law but there can be other methods.

For a level three example, if society says that feeding your family is more important than following the law, this action would not be seen as immoral, but moral, from that society's perspective. This is something that we might have to look into further as well. It might not just be a conflict of interests, but a conflict of cultural morals as well.

For a level five, one would have to sacrifice to make a point, which you pointed out that no one is doing.

For a level six, I can't think of a situation that would show this by crossing the border.

[Happy Monkey]

Risking punishment and being worthy of punishment aren't the same. She risked punishment to show that all people who were punished under that law weren't wrong or worthy of punishment. None of the people punished under that law were wrong or worthy of punishment, even if they weren't breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience.

[DanaC]

Why do the working poor get nada?

Also, aren't many of the illegal immigrants also working poor?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Why do the working poor get nada?

Also, aren't many of the illegal immigrants also working poor?

Because there is a huge class of people here who make to much money to qualify for aid but their jobs do don't pay enough for them to afford insurance or the job does not offer insurance for them or their families.

Illegals don't pay taxes on their income. They claim no income. They get to fall into the lowest class and take advantage of the system in place that should be helping the legal citizens who are poor. The system is filled with holes.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Why do the working poor get nada?

Also, aren't many of the illegal immigrants also working poor?

No, They are not US citizens! Thats the point. The services which are designed and allocated for our citizens are being taken by citizens from other countries.

[DanaC]

If the services were designed and allocated for your citizens, why are millions of your citizens unable to access them?

[lookout123]

i think the point is that resources are being used by people they were unintended for, thus reducing the resources available for the US citizens.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i think the point is that resources are being used by people they were unintended for, thus reducing the resources available for the US citizens.

Correct. And although it is a huge drain on our system it is not the only reason our system is broken. There are many reasons things are not working. Throwing more money is not the answer.