Join The Debate!

THIS is what is going on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M5GK9Na8KU&NR

a liberal society

The name “liberal”, which formerly signified one who favors freedom from state interference, is now much used by those who favor increasing such interference. The modern liberal has retained only the name. The more he is regimented, the greater his freedom from the need of thinking, and to him slavery is complete freedom.

The free market is the citadel of liberty. If citizens may not buy and sell without government interference, their lives are mainly controlled by officials. Economic and political liberties are inseparable.

If the country is further overpopulated with less intelligent beings, markets will be controlled; prices and wages will be fixed. Controlling prices and wages and interfering with the open ballot of the free market mechanically defeats the intention of good men.

In a controlled economy, there is no competition to eliminate inefficiency. Creative capitalism yields more goods for nearly all persons and more freedom than does planned economy. In a free society, officials do not generally control the activities of individuals. Competition under general rules is the efficient method of social adjustment.

In the open ballot of the free market, by buying or not buying, men determine what shall be produced; there is no visible coercion. Social adjustment through the interaction of supply and demand frees men from direct control by officials. The method favors the more competent. In the economy of the market, every man is monarch of his free time and labor in working for the interest of others for his own interest.

Each interference with the free market requires more interference until at length the control is complete. In many counties today, through taxation the government already takes more than one-half the national income!

The free market will probably be abolished by the inferior many who dislike the reasoning required in an individualistic competitive society, who prefer to have their thinking done by them by officials. Capitalism is not only not advancing but is retreating on every front. It may be already to weak to resist its abolition.

Let's see here

"If we make money, we flourish; if we lose money, we starve. Simple and easy -- but it's our fault or our doing either way (with the help of Almighty God.)"

Instances in which not making money is not one's fault...

Job loss/inavailability of full-time employment (especially during a recession)

Nonadulthood
(child living in a poor family)

disability

lack of access to transportation
(in order to get a job you have to get to the job)

lack of capital to start out with, you know "you have to spend money to make money"

above condition resulting in reduced ability to pay for college education

Or to put it another way...

Why should a portion of the earnings of the wealthy be taken to guarantee a certain minimum standard of living for the poor? – Because if they are not it creates a likelihood that people will go homeless, hungry, or die from curable diseases, often through no fault of their own (especially in the case of children). The distribution of wealth in a capitalist society is not entirely dependent upon individuals’ economic contributions to that society (production) and therefore it is unfair and unjust that some will live in squalid and abject poverty as a result of their lack of income, as this lack is not necessarily related to their laziness or unwillingness to produce. Even for those too lazy to produce there is a basic level of human worth independent of sloth or folly that should entice a society to prevent them from enduring the most squalid conditions. The detriment of the welfare state is that some money will be distributed from those who are more deserving to those that are less, but the detriment of its lack is that large numbers of impoverished men, women, and children will receive far less than what they deserve, and this undue punishment will be much greater than that experienced by wealthy people who get an extra 5-10% added to their tax rate.

"Capitalism" is a Marxist Word

"Capitalism" IS a dirty word, in an important sense. It was Karl Marx's term he used to describe economic systems and institutions that aren't Communist as he defined it. (Capitalist would be a private owner of means of production, an enemy in Communist thought.) It was his punching-bag straw man.

I say to you, DON'T USE the term "capitalism" to describe the free enterprise system and private property, either as an ideal concept, or as actually practiced! When you employ Commiespeak, you implicitly adopt and endorse all its definitions and implications. Shun Commiespeak unless you're actually discussing Marxism, one of the most abjectly and consistently failed social, economic, and political philosophies in all of human history.

As to the alleged morality and religious sanction for any degree or flavor of socialism over free enterprise, I can explode and dispell that pernicious myth effortlessly. The supposed religious argument for socialism and the welfare
state is based on the concept of charity. We are supposed to give to the poor. Well, socialism involves confiscation from productive individuals to give to those the confiscators think need it. The moral argument against socialism is very simple: the essential quality of true charity is INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTARY CONSENT. Valid charity only happens when the owner FREELY consents to give to a needy person (or an organization that helps needy people.)

If the rulers employ the threat of any coercion to take property away from the owner ostensibly to "help the poor," an offense, a ROBBERY has been committed against the owner by the rulers. The alleged charity done with the proceeds is irrelevant and of no credit to the rulers because it was not theirs; it was taken by forcible theft. They properly get no credit for 'charity.' Robbers do not make robbery right, or justify themselves, by doing "charity" with stolen goods. It is irrelevant that the rulers might be elected, or even that everyone else voted unanimously in a referendum to confiscate the property to give away. It just makes all these other citizens parties and accessories to robbery.

Here is a moral imperative for you: THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

The socialist concept of wealth and property is that wealth just happens, is rightfully evenly divided among all, but is naturally found "distributed unfairly" because some people either happened to be in the right place at the right
time, or greedily went out and grabbed others' shares, if not outright conned and robbed them. The 'wealthy' prosper by either luck or cheating, and therefore must be made to "redistibute" their wealth to those who had worse luck and didn't cheat. Creation of wealth, and the merit of those who do so, is ignored and disregarded. The poor, OTOH are inherently victims of "maldistribution" no matter how little effort they made toward not being poor, and are entitled to be recipients. Earning and producing results in liability, while idleness entitles!

On the other hand, the free-enterprise private property concept of wealth is that wealth is earned by someone and those who earn and create wealth are entitled to it, unless a defined, provable crime was committed in the process
(e.g. Enron.)

When the fruits of one's labor is robbed by another, even with the supposed object of "helping the poor," one's labor has in effect been stolen. One has been ENSLAVED by the ruler. I thought slavery in the US was such a heinous crime
that even 150 yrs after it ended, and all slaves and slaveowners are long dead, it's still a motivating principle and rallying cry amongst leftist activists. Yet it's perfectly OK to partially enslave the productive just to fund some
sort of superior vision of the anointed (as Dr. Sowell would say), & then to BLAME the producers for poverty, instead of giving credit for providing the wherewithal to distribute to the poor.

Who do the recipients of this "redistributed" wealth, this government 'charity,' recognize and thank as benefactors? The people who worked and risked for it, only to have it taken? NO, OF COURSE NOT! The POLITICIANS, who sent out their
goons with guns to beat wealth out of the productive, have the gall to take credit for giving away this wealth stolen from others. That should tell you something about what is really going on. They buy their way into career re-election by pandering to professional recipients.

To put it bluntly, so many clergy, theologians, and faith organizations buy into this bogus concept that religion & morality endorses Marxist confiscation-redistribution, because they themselves or their organizations either have
drunk the populist socialist Kool-Aid, are heavily infested with leftists, or are in fact creatures of the Left themselves (e.g. the NCC & WCC) Charity is a moral duty, but it must remain an uncoerced voluntary individual act and choice.

The Good Book tells us actions are to be judged by their "fruits." What fruit has socialist redistribution borne? Has poverty been eradicated or reduced? NO. It is perpetuated, worsened, and spread. Why does this not count against the
architects of these schemes? Many of the poor, especially those who are poor by choice, instead of being motivated to better themselves, are taught by Socialism to walk around with chips on their shoulders regarding themselves as victims and feeling entitled to the proceeds of others' labor. The ruling elite love this because it keeps them in power. Who is morally right and who is wrong, in this picture?

"Compassionate conservatism" is a stupid catchphrase; it is redundant because true conservatism is inherently compassionate. Socialist lefties make so much about a bogus concept of "economic justice" that refers to the notion of maldistribution, and demands confiscation & giveaways.

AS Dr. Sowell wrote, (IIRC) "We hear so much about the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'; we should be talking more about the doers and the do-nots."

Here is TRUE conservative economic justice:
Those who earn, have
Those who need, ask
Those who won't, do without

Religion & Politics ..

.. are touchy issues! And, we're told (even as children) not to discuss politics & religion in polite conversation. But here goes, anyway ..

In my opinion, religion is a deeply personal matter. Also, it IS the source of many of our values and virtues. However, we also can be blinded by religion - if we accept EVERY value & virtue that is extolled by religion, into politics.

For example, all major religions extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. And that is the moral basis of socialism. Once we accept the maxim that 'self-sacrifice is a boundless virtue' into our DNA, the dice is loaded IN FAVOR OF socialism.

As a result, you find religious conservatives arguing against socialism ONLY on pragmatic grounds (e.g. it doesn't work, therfore it is evil). We no longer seem to have a MORAL argument against socialism, and have to resort to contortions like 'compassionate conservative' against the charge that we are selfish, cold, unfeeling ...

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why some well-intentioned people begin their intellectual lives as leftists (it just SEEMS to be the moral high ground, and more consistent with their religious beliefs), until their life experiences make the blinders come off.

You've heard the saying "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!" - I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I'm sure y'all have heard this?

For this reason, I am atheistic in my political beliefs. In my personal life -- well, that's personal, and mamma told me not to .. y'know!

what happens to the "losers"?

In a purely capitalist system, there can be extreme winners (Bill Gates) and extreme losers (people who lose everything and are out on the street).

And whether we like to admit it or not, having people who lose everything and are in total poverty has social consequences for all of us. Seeing drunken bums on the street who lost everything contributes to an overall feeling of social breakdown. It increases the crime rate too. With modern television, we can no longer just pretend the impoverished and the slums don't exist.

It's these vast disparities in wealth and income that trouble thoughtful people, when those at the very lowest end of the scale may have so little as to be unable to survive with the cost of living.

Capitalism cannot guarantee a minimal comfort level to any individual. Yet no just industrial society can exist if it allows the poverty of Calcutta. That's the problem and only government can modify capitalism enough to smooth out such extreme differences.

Colectivismo e Individualismo.

Good article David. To Spanish readers my words.


Desde la excelente realización humana en la civilización occidental que significó el "RENACIMIENTO", y el descrédito de muchos de los errores (actitudes y creencias) comunes en la cultura obscurantista de la Edad Media, la humanidad en el mundo occidental en sólo 500 años ha pasado del estancamiento cultural, científico y tecnológico a la realidad del presente.

1] Las expectativas de vida han pasado de 30 años en las sociedades y grupos mejor dotados en medios, a 65 – 70 aún en sociedades y grupos clasificados en los estratos socioeconómicos menos dotados.

2] La salud y los servicios de salud en las sociedades de alto desarrollo (primer mundo) son casi un sueño o quimera comparados con las circunstancias en que vivieron los humanos en la edad media. Basta leer algo de historia de la medicina sobre las pestes y epidemias, junto con las plagas y enfermedades que asolaban la Europa de los siglos I a XIV. (Peste bubónica, lepra, tuberculosis, tifo, viruela, el cólera, las diversas eruptivas como el sarampión, las enfermedades de la piel, las invasiones parasitarias, las afecciones por mal funcionamiento orgánico, las heridas y fracturas, las muertes durante partos, y las mismas afecciones que no eran identificadas en ese tiempo por ignorancia o supersticiones y que hoy se conocen y se denominan: cáncer, SIDA, etc.)

El enfoque de la sociedad hacia los afectados por desordenes o deficiencias psiquicas, retrasos mentales etc. en el tiempo presente es notablemente mejor que durante el tiempo del obscurantismo y el dogmatismo de la Edad Media, en la cual todo lo desconocido que era casi todo se atribuía a demonios en el cuerpo de la víctima o castigos de los dioses. La historia documentada permite conocer los innumerabas casos de enfermos asesinados para expulsar sus demonios, los zurdos eran sacrificados o vistos como malignos, etc.

3] La educación de los niños, jóvenes y adultos ha alcanzado niveles de calidad, cantidad de contenido, especializaciones o campos del conocimiento, tiempo necesario para el logro de la capacitación del educando (eficiencia) evidentemente muy altos comparados con lo que unos pocos muy poderosos y ricos podían tener para sus hijos en la Edad Media. Los medios con los que se cuenta en la actualidad (Internet, los computadores, los medios audiovisuales, las bibliotecas, etc.) no se puede negar que son mucho más eficientes que los disponibles hasta el siglo XIV.

4] La disponibilidad de alimentos gracias a la productividad alcanzada usando tecnología, ciencia, organización, mercadeo, gerencia y los medios de transporte junto con los medios de pago y comercio internacional en el presente hacen imposible que ocurran las catástrofes socio económicas comunes durante las hambrunas registradas en la historia de la edad media aún con una población insignificante comparada con la de hoy.

5] La disponibilidad de bienes materiales importantes y menos importantes, algunos hasta superfluos, que permiten o contribuyen a una calidad de vida cada vez de mayor seguridad y comodidad. Basta entrar en una vivienda de los estratos menos fuertes económicamente para ver desde las cerraduras hasta el último accesorio o mueble, que se dispone de muchas más cosas y servicios que antes. Agua corriente, electricidad, gas, teléfono, TV, aseo publico, cloacas, la gama de accesorios de plomería y baños, la gama de aparatos electrodomésticos, la gama de aparatos y servicios asociados a la computación e informática, la gama de artefactos y servicios asociados al esparcimiento y crecimiento personal, la gama de aparatos asociados a la conservación y preparación de alimentos y a la climatización interior. Finalmente las posibilidades actuales para el transporte (bicicletas, automotores, y medios públicos colectivos)

HISTORIA .- Examinando la historia del desarrollo humano (dejando de lado ese aspecto de la historia limitado a la adulación y endiosamiento de los guerreros y descripción edulcorada de las guerras con las que dañaron mas que mejoraron a la humanidad por satisfacer su manías, fobias y ambiciones de gloria y dinero no ganados con verdaderos méritos) se puede comprobar como la libertad para estudiar e investigar, la libertad para construir y probar, la libertad para comerciar con sus realizaciones e inventos, la libertad para obtener ganancias y crear riqueza, la libertad para invertir sus ganancias y ahorros, la libertad para coordinar inversiones de capital de asociaciones de accionistas, han sido las condiciones que permitieron el desarrollo y el progreso.
No todos los humanos tienen conocimientos, habilidades, perseverancia para ser descubridores, inventores, empresarios, comerciantes, etc. Donde los individuos que tienen o desarrollan tales cualidades son obligados a caminar por la vida como los que no las tienen, simplemente no se produce progreso.
Donde los humanos con cualidades y aptitudes para la creación de riqueza se les castiga quitándoles el producto de su ingenio y trabajo ya sea con impuestos o con leyes expropiatorias u otras formas de inseguridad económica, simplemente se produce un desinterés por las actividades de creación de riqueza y de desarrollo. Nadie se esfuerza para que venga un vago y le quite todo lo que le ha costado lograr. Los lugares donde a los creadores de riqueza se les persigue y roba pronto se quedan sin personas dispuestas a crear riqueza, progreso y trabajo para otros que no tienen sus habilidades; esas persona huyen a otros lugares y es en esos lugares donde sus cualidades habilidades van a dar sus frutos.
En todas las experiencias de la humanidad se ha demostrado que una sociedad en la que las libertades anteriores sean respetadas es mucho más eficiente y exitosa que aquellas donde estas no existen

En todos los grupos humanos también hay oportunistas predadores; ellos no producen desarrollo ni riqueza, ellos quieren apoderarse de las riquezas que otros tienen y una de las formas de robar mas exitosas que han encontrado es la de robar en nombre de los que carecen de algo los pobres, los excluidos, los proletarios, los discriminados, etc.

Expertos en las artes del engaño, nutridos con las enseñanzas de la historia de predadores similares usan el estimulo de la envidia en los que no tienen algo para accionar contra los que tienen ese algo. Organizan campañas, movimientos políticos o sociales no para producir algo de riqueza sino para atacar a quienes la tienen y producen. Estos estafadores de masas usan mentiras como:

Lucha contra la pobreza.

Lucha contra las desigualdades.

Redistribución de la riqueza.

Disminución de la brecha entre ricos y pobres.

En las denominaciones de sus organizaciones o movimientos, hábilmente incluyen los conceptos pueblo, todos, comunidad, sociedad, (evidentemente no van a usar algo como pandilla, banda, o mafia) Ejemplos: Comunismo, Socialismo, Colectivismo, etc. También usan nombres de personajes cuyas leyendas los pintan como salvadores, libertadores, pero que en la realidad fueron predadores nocivos, corruptos y ladrones y hasta genocidas, como es el caso de: bolivarismo o bolivarianismo, guevarismo, sandinismo, castrismo, maoismo, estalinismo, zapatismo, etc.

En todos los momentos de la historia su camino ha sido:

1] Hacerse dirigentes de los menos hábiles como productores de conocimientos, progreso y riqueza. Sembrando el odio social y exacerbando la envidia hacia los que muestran resultados positivos en cualquier campo del desarrollo humano, se hacen ver como luchadores sociales, defensores de los pobres y desamparados, reivindicadores de los desposeídos, marginados o excluidos; son agitadores profesionales que sin escrúpulo alguno acuden a la prostitución, la extorsión, el secuestro y el terrorismo para dominar y presentarse como los apoderados ilimitados del pueblo.

2] Controlar las organizaciones sociales en forma mafiosa de manera disimulada o abierta según se pueda.

3] Administrar esas organizaciones sociales (sociedades, condominios, sindicatos, países) de manera que les permita a los parásitos mantenerse en el control de las mismas y aprovechar ese poder para mediante trucos administrativos diversos obtener de los verdaderos productores de riqueza, fondos y recursos (impuestos, expropiaciones y robos similares con disfraz de legalidad) para vivir como los reyes, emperadores, libertadores y alimañas similares, en la opulencia y el despilfarro. Son los verdaderos vampiros chupa sangre de la humanidad.

El esquema típico de la estafa continuada consiste en promover un ente todopoderoso casi un dios al que se le atribuyen arbitrariamente conocimientos, infalibilidad, justicia, bondad, y cuanta cualidad se pueda encontrar. Ese ente todo poderoso es en forma panteísta una extensión de otro que denominan el pueblo que incluye en realidad a quienes los representantes (sumos sacerdotes) del ente deseen que se incluyan en forma anodina y sin personalidad ni derechos de carácter individual.

DIOS – SUMO SACERDOTE O CLERO – PUEBLO

ESTADO – FURER O POLITBURO – PUEBLO

EL PARTIDO – EL LIDER O EL COMANDANTE – LA MASA BRUTA

Los oportunistas en el centro manejando el Estado Todopoderoso y Totalitario, por el bien del pueblo se aprovechan groseramente de todos como sus esclavos. Si la nación se arruina, como lo muestra la historia en TODOS los experimentos registrados, esos desalmados chupasangre ni les importa ni lo pueden percibir por sus propias carencias morales e intelectuales positivas. Lo mismo ocurre con organizaciones de menor escala como partidos, cooperativas, condominios, clubes sociales, etc.

Ningún oportunista criminal reconoce y muchas veces ni percibe que lo que hace al predar a sus semejantes daña a todos y no sólo a las víctimas directas.

Ref. Sobre predadores y predadores sociales.
http://www.freewebs.com/experienceandknowledge/08protjase.htm

http://www.freewebs.com/experienceandknowledge/11protejaseiiia.htm

Ref. Sobre supersticiones. http://www.freewebs.com/experienceandknowledge/05supersticiones.htm

CAPITALISMO EL DEMONIO
Para hacer propaganda contra las libertades necesarias al desarrollo de la humanidad, para manipular a los menos capaces de la sociedad, los embaucadores han usado el término capitalismo como el demonio causa de todas las carencias y deficiencias que existen en cada sociedad y han difundido mitos y mentiras como:

El dinero es sucio y perverso,- cuando es un simple medio de cambio muy práctico.

El capital es inhumano y malvado,- cuando el valor de las propiedades y demás bienes de una entidad económica que son lo que se llama capital, no es susceptible de cualidades humanas, el dinero no es ni bueno ni malo, es simplemente un medio de cambio muy útil.

El comercio es malo,- cuando sin el comercio la humanidad estuviera aún en estado similar al de los simios.

La previsión es perversa,- Delito de acaparamiento, etc. el uso de la inteligencia para planificar y prever y así superar los cambios en la disponibilidad de ciertos bienes es lo que ha permitido a la humanidad su progreso.

La propiedad privada no debe respetarse,- Argumento típico del ladrón. Hasta las especies animales mas elementales tienen el instinto de la sobrevivencia y para ello el concepto de territorio de subsistencia que en la humanidad civilizada incluye los conceptos de la propiedad privada de bienes y capital.

El consumo es perverso,- La perversa sociedad de consumo y muchas otras barrabasadas similares.

Lo que debe mantenerse en mente es que aquello que los predadores combatan o critiquen y le atribuyan ser causa de males o deficiencias reales, exagerados o inventados, hay que examinarlo con la desconfianza que debe tenérsele a todo predador.

invisible hand

Adam Smith's use of the "invisible hand" expression describes capitalisms strength and weakness. The invisible hand is unpredictable. Liberals see that as a weakness. Unpredictability is the open door to innovation. Conservatives see that as a strength.

The anti-capitalists are afraid of the the invisible hand and prefer the "visible hand" of socialism/corporatism/communism etc.

It is easy to always be doing something good... as they say. It is hard to leave something alone... as we say.

Liberals are afraid to be free.

Conservatives are afraid to be not-free.

Capitalism = Democracy

Capitalism is democracy enacted every day, every hour by the people. People everywhere in a Capitalistic society are free to vote with their dollars and with their feet for the product, service, or job that they want the most.

That’s why it’s a dirty word with liberals. What they really fear is people exercising their free will in a free society.

Moderate

MOONBAT ALERT!

Thanks for making me laugh stooge.

"Why is communism such a dirty word?"

Gee, I don't know. Maybe ask the 10 million that Stalin starved to death inorder to create the "collective" farms?

How about the 20 million killed in Cambodia for a utopia?

Maybe you can ask a Cuban how nice his/her utopia is. Where the monthly wage is 10.00 and farmers are still plowing with oxen?

What a paradise. Go back to the DailyKoS clown, we're already full up with boneheads from the left, i.e., Tehran Kim, Left Angle, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

We don't need more spin!

Trying to rename capitalism to make it more appealing is like some auto manufacturer coming up with a new sales pitch to sell cars instead of better engineering.

I think that capitalism defeated communism because, as the author points out, command and control economies simply don't work. Government bureaucrats are not the kind of people who invent new breakfast cereals..or much of anything.

Voice of Reason makes an important point. I would say this: Religion teaches that sin is a fact of life and that it is to be resisted. I tend to agree with that. Sins that are usually associated with capitalism include greed. We see this everyday. But socialism's and communism's sins are far greater. They also include greed, but also murder, lying and tyranny.

What this country needs is a moral uprising against the kind of mean spirited selfishness that many pro business people seem to exhibit.

I would like to see our government have policies that create an opportunity society for Americans, not a welfare state. I completely agree with Virginia Patriot. There are other things besides money and none of us will benefit from a profit motive acting like an unguided missile, turning our country into a banana republic.

Of course, the economic liberterians, some of whom don't even believe in zoning laws, and some of whom think that the Sherman Anti-trust act and child labor laws were communistic, and their sunshine boy spin doctors, would like us to think that we will all be magically better if we just let the chips fall where they will.

All systems have to work for most people if they are to survive. That is why communism fell. American capitalism had better remember this.

CHEAP GOODS FROM CHILD AND SLAVE LABOR

http://www.controlcongress.com

Economist David O Rear has ask me this question “who’s labor or environmental standards should be the ones America demand the world follow”?

MY ANSWER

As far as labor and environmental standards in trade deals. This can be negotiated in any trade deal with a factor used to equalize the difference. In the business world we call this horse trading.

Your view as well as Bush, Clinton, Gore, McCain…. Of turning a blind eye to Countries that are controlled by brutal dictators is not free market economics according to Adam Smith. The father of free market economics Smith was a big advocate of human and labor rights, which economist like you never mention nor teach! BTW this debate about cheap goods at the expense of exploitation was had in our own COUNTRY during the time of the civil war years.

FROM THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR (member of History Channel)

“While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business”. “Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer”. “To many it was just that simple”.

We also had the debate about child labor and sweatshops read the Jungle by Sinclair.
BTW our economy did fine after freeing slaves and stopping child labor abuses.

Cut and paste boilerplate?

What a sorry excuse for a column. A conservative site publishes a post saying capitalism is a good economic system, citing growth statistics. Why not have a column saying democracy is good, or that football is fun? Where's the beef?

Capitalism

I am a firm believer in American capitalism. With emphasis on AMERICAN. When multi-nationals think it's O.K. to subvert our sovereignty by illegally importing workers for jobs that can't be exported, then I am opposed. The employer sanctions passed in 1986 that were supposed to prevent the current mess have never been enforced because the employers do not want them enforced and the politicians rely on their money for campaigns so they actively prevent them from being enforced. Money trumps everything, including loyalty to country.