The ant and the grasshopper

Silver Hilton · 06-05-2003, 12:53 PM

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome". Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Tom Daschle & Walter Mondale exclaim in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act", retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Vote Republican

:grin:

Thumper · 06-05-2003, 02:02 PM

Yay SH!!!

There is perhaps hope for you after all!!!

Rip'N'Lips · 06-06-2003, 09:45 AM

SH-

You are the exact reason why I will always vote Democrat...

Remember though, hard work only goes so far in this economy. The thousands of migrant workers who work the fields do work harder than the average joe, but often live just barely above the poverty line...

Rip'N'Lips

Thumper · 06-06-2003, 01:30 PM

Rip'n --- SH is so far left that once in a while he comes full circle and appears to be slightly right. But it doesn't last too long. :grin:

Silver Hilton · 06-06-2003, 11:23 PM

Boy, Rip'n', you don't know my history on this board very well, do you? Whyncha ask Thumper where he thinks I sit in the political spectrum?

Jack, you wantta set this boy straight that I'm a ******?

speyfly · 06-06-2003, 11:30 PM

I know what your up too SH. Your trying to confuse the neocons so you can blind side em huh

! I knew you were up to one of your sneaky liberal tricks [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] .

feisty's wife · 06-07-2003, 01:22 AM

Rip/n Lips...whom honestly cares about the plight of the illegals, I know I do not, nor ever will.

STGRule · 06-07-2003, 06:12 AM

Thumper: That was a good "setting him staight". :grin:

Silver Hilton · 06-08-2003, 06:51 PM

"full circle..." That was pretty good, Thumper. :smile:

Rip'n', it's just a parody, man. And probably a good lesson for all of us that you can't get the measure of a person from a single internet posting. I happen to find this one funny, because it's a good parody of knee jerk ditto-head thinking about our country. But that fact that it raises hackles indicates that there may be a bit of truth in there somewhere.

Look back at my posts on the tax cuts issue before you kick me on hitting the little people when they're down.

Silver Hilton · 06-08-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speyfly:
I know what your up too SH. Your trying to confuse the neocons so you can blind side em huh .

Don't get complacent there, Speyfly. The Neo-cons are the easy targets for my venom today. If GW gets pounded in two years, the Dems will be back in my sights. I'm an equal opportunity sniper.

Thumper · 06-08-2003, 07:58 PM

Not likely. :tongue:

Digifish · 06-08-2003, 10:00 PM

SH-
Your bait is always good :shocked:
but once again your catching is priceless....

happybrew · 06-08-2003, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by feisty:
Rip/n Lips...whom honestly cares about the plight of the illegals, I know I do not, nor ever will.

We should always care about the plight of our fellow man. Just because they are in the country illegally, that doesn't mean that they are any less human than the rest of us.

My great great great grandfather was an illegal alien. During the Mexican American War, he did what you would do if your country was invaded. He defended his country. Because he fought on the losing side, after the war he was deported from California, and the land his family had lived in since the 1700's, a land grant from the Spanish crown from the earliest days of Spanish rule in California, was confiscated. Many years later, he came back- illegally - and was an illegal alien in the land of his birth. We didn't deport those who fought for the South in the Civil War, but we did deport Indians to reservations and those of Spanish descent to Mexico, and all because they didn't look like everyone else or speak the same language. Last I heard, the Declaration of Independence said that the rights of men were self-evident and granted from God. Those rights were spelled out in the Constitution, and among them are life and liberty. If these are granted, not by men, but by God, then even illegal aliens have them as well. If people are being denied life and liberty, they are certainly justified in seeking them elsewhere. I don't think that the pursuit of happiness justifies illegal immigration, and there are certainly many who immigrate illegally for that reason, but for many of them,it is a matter of life. If you have no education, no money, and no prospects of getting them, and if there is no opportunity to work in order to provide for yourself the things you need to live, then that is a very real human problem that needs to be addressed. The Mexican government has been unable, for many reasons, and not good reasons, to take care of its people. The people must then take care of themselves by finding work where they can, and that would be here. Don't blame the illegal aliens. Blame the government of Mexico. We should spend more time and energy leaning on the Mexican government that leaning on some guy just trying to feed his kids.

happybrew

Thumper · 06-09-2003, 04:56 AM

Happybrew, I appreciate your post. Well thought out. Given that perspective I am, however, curious about your position on the issue of granting illegals resident college tuition rates.

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 06:42 AM

They are not legal residents, so they should not get resident tuition. Everyone has the obligation to follow the laws of the country they live in unless there is an overriding reason not to, such as the fact that you will starve if you do. As an example, if the government taxed us at 99% of our income, we would certainly not be under any moral obligation to pay that tax if it meant we would have nothing left over to eat and have a place to live. However, a reasonable amount of taxation is not wrong, and we must pay it even if it means we must forgo some things we would like to have. It's similar with college tuition. A college education, while certainly desireable, is not a necessity of life, and thus someone doesn't have a right to it like they have a right to food and shelter. Also, someone who is making a good living in another country, and comes here illegally in order to make a better living, should certainly be sent back. This does account for a significant percentage of illegal immigration. Those people should seek legal avenues for entering this country. But going after farmworkers is silly. I've met people with a third grade education, speaking no English, who have had to work since they were small children. They come out of desperation. A lot of them go back to Mexico when they have enough to support their families, and job prospects open up for them there.

One thing about our immigration policy is that it leads to abuses and injustice. I know one lady, a U.S. citizen, born here, who was hauled off to jail because she left her driver's license at home, and they assumed she was an illegal, along with her sister and her mom. Her husband had to bring their ID's to get them out. She had to prove her innocence to the INS, rather than the INS proving her guilt. They had no reason to hold her other than her ethnic background and lack of ID on her person. She broke no laws. That's not right. If they'd give as much effort to trying to get the Mexican Government to reform as they do to rounding up people, they'd probably have less illegal immigration. That's just my take on it. Of course, they can't make another government do anything. So it's hard to really do anything. It's not good to have undocument people in this country, and it's also not good to be an undocumented person in this country, but people have to eat.

happybrew

Rip'N'Lips · 06-09-2003, 06:53 AM

Alright, my bad....

After sitting next to tons of in-breeders on the river, I tend to have doubts about others on the boards... I guess I will have to revise my thinking since the majority of snaggers/poachers I have seen probably couldn't spell computer with a dictionary...

My apologies.

Rip'N'Lips

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 07:27 AM

Thumper, Happybrew,

I think one thing that is lost in the college tuition for immigrant question is the stimulative effect of education. We get all wrapped around the axle about whether somebody, somewhere, might be improving their life at our expense, when we might do well to remember that all that student is trying to do is get educated, so he can get a job, so he can pay higher taxes.

Of course, then he'll whine about tax rates, but that's another story...

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 08:32 AM

I wouldn't argue that they shouldn't get an education. I would argue how much they have to pay. Someone in Vancouver, working in Portland would not be entitled to resident tuition, even though they work here and pay taxes here. Why should anyone else who is not a legal resident be entitled to that tuition break? If the people of Oregon decide that illegal aliens should get resident tuition, then that's fine and dandy, but its my personal opinion that they should first become legal residents. I also think it should be easier for them to become legal residents so that they have more of a stake in what goes on here. As it stands now, identity theft is a frequent occurance. I've had two instances where I work. Many times they don't get things like auto insurance, because their drivers license is fake, and if they get into an accident, they leave because they can't pay for the damages. If it were easier for them to become legal residents, it would certainly reduce these problems. I am not against anyone getting an education, though.

happybrew

Thumper · 06-09-2003, 10:17 AM

I guess I may be a simpleton, but I kinda think that illegal aliens should leave the country, not be treated to a discount on their educational costs. Illegal is illegal. Not very PC of me, I guess. :depressed:

[ 06-09-2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 10:34 AM

No you're not a simpleton. I'm not PC either. I think they should leave the country as well if they can support themselves there. But many of them are here because they can't. Heck, if you're not PC, you should give me a hand in the Mandatory Reporting Law thread! :grin:

happybrew

The Fishing Geek · 06-09-2003, 10:35 AM

Until they are keeping American citizens from getting into college, I see no problem with giving them the resident rate to help them get higher education. If we could somehow give higher education for all who wanted it for free, I'd be willing to do that, too.

Education is a GOOD THING.

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 02:11 PM

At the risk of being contrarian, why should we care if someone immigrates illegally, if they are subsequently law abiding, working, and paying taxes? The only reason they want to come here is to get a job. Seems to me that the average first generation immigrant has a better work ethic than many of our citizens.

This seems to me to another one of the status offenses that doesn't hurt many folks.

Thumper · 06-09-2003, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
At the risk of being contrarian, why should we care if someone immigrates illegally, if they are subsequently law abiding, working, and paying taxes?

And why should we mind if someone robs a bank, if they subsequently give half the money to Mother Teresa, and are subsequently law abiding, working and paying taxes? The law is the law, at least that seems logical to me.

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 02:53 PM

Then why not exceed your limit for salmon or steelhead? One could fish once, take ten fish, and not fish the rest of the year, and still have fewer fish than others take over the course of the year. Why not snag fish? It's not hurting anyone.

It's generally recognized by the international community that countries have the right to control their borders, and keep track of who is coming in. It also allows the government to extend necessary protections to those who are in the country. When people seek to come into this country illegally, they risk their lives at the hands of people who will take advantage of them. Were they to enter legally, it would be easier for the government to protect them from people like that.

Keep in mind that many of those illegal immigrants are committing identity fraud, and others end up with a tax bill and other debts incurred by someone else who cannot be found. I had two illegals working for me who had done this. All of their id and social security cards were government issued. They weren't who they said they were. I ended up with phone calls from people whose social security number they were using wondering why income was reported from us when they lived hundreds of miles away. By the time anyone caught on, they were already gone and working somewhere else. Legal immigration eliminates this problem.

happybrew

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 02:58 PM

Well, the obvious answer is, robbing a bank hurts someone. Crossing an arbitrary line in texas dust to get a job that legal US citizens won't do, doesn't.

I have little respect for the reasoning, "because it's the law". There are numerous laws that are simply silly, and our society would be better off by removing them from the books. There are other laws that you and others have thought are silly, such as paying the current rate of taxes, for example. By your reasoning, the law is impregnably perfect, and we should never question people's desires to do things that the law currently prohibits. The debate around tax policy shows that we clearly think laws address issues that are not moral, and that these laws bear adjusting from time to time. Wouldn't you agree that Congress has probably passed more imperfect laws than good ones, and we do well to constantly scrutinze them?

Something that conservatives might do well to ponder is this: the main justification for keeping immigration low is that it reduces wage competition. By keeping folks from coming in and getting work here, competition for jobs is reduced, which necessarily keeps wages higher than otherwise would be the case. It also reduces competition for buying housing, cars, and other goods, which keeps prices and profits lower than might otherwise be the case. Good for the wage earning public, but it's not necessarily clear whether it's good for society at large.

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 03:02 PM

I should add that my points are really around the immigration quotas, which cause most illegals to come across illegally. I agree that there is some number of them that are common criminals and agree that those should be excluded.

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 03:08 PM

Happy,

I'm sure you realize that these people would happily enter legally if they could. We don't let them. We have quotas for entry from each country, and we discriminate against non-educated people. I absolutely agree that they would be better off if they were allowed to legally immigrate, but it's not a choice that we give them.

Thumper · 06-09-2003, 04:08 PM

Silver Hilton --- What a stunning display of rationalization! Glad you are back to normal. :grin:

So if we feel that a law is poorly constructed or "silly" (your word), then we have the right to ignore it? Sorry. Can't buy that. Neither do the courts.

By the way, the conservatives that I know have no problem with orderly immigration. Most conservatives (I think) do hope that incoming immigrants be able to support themselves. All nations, to my knowledge, have that requirement, and it is a reasonable one.

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 04:56 PM

Sorry SH, but unless there is a very compelling reason, the law should be obeyed. If the law is not a good one, it should be changed. I agree that it should be easier to get in. But I note that you didn't address the issue of false identity as a reason why the government needs to keep tabs on who is in this country.

happybrew

DanS · 06-09-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Neither do the courts.

You sure about that Jack? What about arguments based on the constitutionality of a law?

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 05:50 PM

No, I'm not arguing that we should ignore laws that are silly. In general, I think we agree that society is essentially a base of rules, and we need those rules to be followed.

However, I think society should take note when a given law is widely ignored. In areas such as illegal immigration, recreational drug use, gambling, polygamy, it seems to me that we make more troubles for ourselves when we try to prohibit two parties from consensually engaging in some act. This widespread flouting of the law usually indicates that we are trying to prohibit an act where general society does not agree with the prohibition. That type of law historically always fails, such as we saw with Prohibition in the 1920's, and as we see in illegal immigration today.

Happy, in your example of the illegals presenting fake ID, our attempts to keep these folks from working for you caused them to engage in other felonies, and contribute to the general breakdown in our law and order in this country. If we allowed them to legally entry the country to find work, they would have likely done so.

In the other areas of consensual crimes, this is even more clearly so. Our fervent desire to legislate morality has in fact caused a wave of crime while acheiving negligible strides towards morality.

Getting back to the ant and the grasshopper, I think there are lot more ants coming from Mexico than grasshoppers.

[ 06-09-2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

Thumper · 06-09-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silver Hilton:
.... our attempts to keep these folks from working for you caused them to engage in other felonies ....

Another classic liberal perspective. Our attempts to enforce the current immigration laws "caused" these nice folks to engage in felonies. It is our fault. Tsk. Tsk.

George Bush is truly safe.

[ 06-09-2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

Silver Hilton · 06-09-2003, 07:13 PM

Oh, please. I'm not ascribing blame, I'm analysing the situation. Do you disagree that they got the illegal ID because of their immigration status? It's not a case of who is or is not at fault, it's about understanding the motivators of human behavior.

Of course they got illegal ID because we are enforcing the immigration laws. It is debateable whether we should have the current strategy towards immigrants as we do. It is however, a matter of fact that our current policy causes throwoff costs such as Happy's friends having illegal ID that assumes someone else's ID. That cost someone some grief, and it's an external cost of our enforcement strategy. That isn't a liberal concept, it's simple economic analysis. What is liberal or conservative is what we choose to do based on that analysis.

I'm fascinated at your accusation of liberalism. I'm gonna assume that you know who Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley are. I suspect that their assessment of this mechanism that currently exists would be exactly the same as mine. Would you assert that they are liberals?

Silliness? The American public hasn't shown a lot of ability to recognize idiocy lately. You may be right in your assessment of Bush's safety. As I believe Mark Twain said, "No-one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the public."

Silliness is refusing to recognize the forces of the market economy when you see them in action. It has been a classic liberal error to refuse to recognize these forces. It is entertaining to watch the new wannabe conservatives make the same errors.

[ 06-09-2003, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 09:30 PM

I think I've pegged you SH. You are a utilitarian. I, on the other hand, believe in a virtue based ethical and political theory. The fact that someone obtains someone else's identity and uses it is always wrong. Honesty is always right. The only thing that can override that is a higher ethical principle, namely the support of one's family. This cannot be done at the expense of someone else. Obtaining someone else's identity is done at the expense of the other person. It potentially makes it impossible for them to support their family, and thus it is wrong, absolutely and completely. They are not my friends, as you have described. One of them, I had to make a racial harrassment claim about to the owners. I was not Hispanic enough for him, and he made several negative comments about it, and then had the gall to say I was discriminating against him. I, the guy who is proud of his limited Hispanic heritage, who speaks some Spanish, and goes out of his way to make life easier for Hispanic employees, and count some as friends. No, the guy was a scoundrel, and acted like one by stealing someone else's identity, failed to pay taxes, and got that other person into trouble. He drove a very expensive car, which I'm sure he failed at some point to make the payments on, further getting that guy into trouble, as I know he couldn't afford it on what he was making. No, our immigration laws didn't force him to steal someone else's identity. He chose to do so, so that he could have what he wanted, as opposed to what he needed. He was a womanizer and a liar. I have nothing but contempt for him and all that he stood for. There was no virue in him. Life is not reducible to a calculation of desired ends and means. It is based on character. A guy trying to support his family, and taking the risk and sacrifice of becoming an illegal alien in order to do so, is a hero. The guy who does it so that he can have more and better "stuff" is a jerk, and he should be hauled off to jail.

happybrew

happybrew · 06-09-2003, 11:10 PM

Do you think that Vancouver residents who pay taxes in Oregon should get resident tuition then?

happybrew

Silver Hilton · 06-10-2003, 06:27 AM

Heck, I would have told you that, with pride. Utilitarianism, as in John Stuart Mills' style, indeed underlies my philosophy. I think the essense of this would be that we should strive to impose the minimum restraints on each others liberty possible, while targeting those restraints precisely on those actions by people which cause others harm.

Under this theory, of course it's wrong for the guy to assume someone else's identity. It's not clear that restrictions on free immigration from Mexico are harmful.

My observation is still that the prohibitions against free immigration don't make much sense, and create the situations that we have previously discussed.

The difference, as I see it, between a utilitarian view of law and the current trend towards a moralistic view of law, is that moralism doesn't easily permit the discussion of unintended consequences. We pass laws because things are wrong, dammit! When the action is widely agreed to be wrong, such as theft and murder, the laws work well. When the law is against something where the population is more ambivalent, such as the ability of people with brown skin to enter the country to work for low wages, we see widespread disregard for the law.

As a utilitarian, I observe that creating those types of laws tends to not acheieve the desired effect, and to throw off a lot of unintended expenses. They also tend to fundamentally underlie the creation of big government.