Comments: Dad Says

You convinced me long ago, brother. But there are some rules. (Surely you're not an anarchist, right? Even if I keep calling you Shirley?)

Rule 1 - You will be assimilated. Not completely, mind you, just to the degree that you understand YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HARM OTHERS, EXCEPT IN SELF-DEFENSE. And no, your holy book and your non-GMO croplands are not part of anyone's "self."

Rule 2 - You will enter our lands through a designated point of entry, get your personal government ID number, and follow our laws to the T. All of them, even the stupid ones, until they are changed.

Rule 3 - The U.S. Constitution applies to you, everyone like you, everyone who forms a special interest group like you or different from you or any other person, individually or as a group. You may not promulgate laws to serve your interests that contradict anything in the old fashioned out-of-date never changing document we lovingly call our Constitution.

Rule 4 - Voting is for the little things. Anything that's important is in the Constitution and cannot be changed by voting. If something harms one or more other person, physically or financially, you can't vote on it. You can pretend, but that's just a nostalgic exercise to remind yourself of the impoverished s*$&-hole you immigrated here from. If you want to vote, go back.

Yeah, that oughtta do it.

Posted by johngalt at March 21, 2017 7:43 PM

One more topical point, although not a rule. More of a suggestion. A bit of fatherly advice-

To a large extent, Representative Steve King was right: "You cannot rebuild a civilization with other people's babies."

What that means is, the best western citizens are the sons and daughters of existing western citizens. Bear babies, don't abort them. Where in the hell did western couples form the tradition to have such small families? We're not even replacing ourselves, much less growing our civilization. To a large extent I blame Paul Erlich and his ilk. Having any kids, not to mention more than two, has come to be considered "selfish" and "wasteful." Bullcrap.

"The economic evidence is clear that America needs more native born sons and daughters."

Posted by johngalt at March 21, 2017 7:50 PM

Good stuff, brother JG, mostly agreed with one nit:

Having any kids, not to mention more than two, has come to be considered "selfish" and "wasteful."
Another breeder says "not quite." Only the hardcore Progs are trying to throw babies out with the recycled bath water, and even they are non-foolish enough to keep it covert. (Read a Sierra Club brochure to familiarize y'sef with da' code...)
Generally, now that offspring are (much)less needed to work the farm, churn the butter, chew the fat and all that, and (somewhat) less needed to care for the elderly - as in "me" - the drive to have multiple children has lessened significantly. Having fewer children also leaves more time and money for "Me." Now that last sentence sounds selfish (as it is), so the enlightened, would-be elists crowd has learned to finesse it into altruistic gaia-servitude.
All in all, agreed. As far as us multiple-generation American borns keeping the breed going, review "The Roe Effect"!

Posted by nanobrewer at March 21, 2017 11:32 PM

RE: the Four Rules: I appreciate that you're trying to craft the Constitution while I got the cushy job of writing the Declaration of Independence. Yes, to reify lofty, ambitious goals will require some compromises.

If I've truly convinced you and you just need a practical framework, my work here is done. However...

My objection to your eminently reasonable "designated point of entry" is that today's Paul Erlichs, like one Rep. Steve King (White Guy - IA), have placed insuperable barriers on legal entry. I wish to get rid of illegal immigration by making legal immigration easy. That should satisfy both of us but I can't see its happening.

I think all Americans should oughtta follow your other rules. Your specifying immigrants makes me think my work is not done. We don't put conditions on the new births at St. Joseph's today; some will disregard the constitution. Our new arrivals, like native born, are a resource.

Posted by jk at March 22, 2017 10:53 AM

RE: Congressman King: I could not disagree more fulsomely.

What fundamentally separates America from other nations is that we are bound by ideas and not race and not tenure. That place is called France. It's lovely. They have stunning vistas and delicious cheeses. But their nation is built on a geographical and racial identity.

You can't become French but you can become American, like my lovely immigrant bride has. I'm the ThreeSources slacker in the reproduction department, but her sisters' kids are very very very very much American.

Rep. King's contradict that which truly makes America exceptional.

Posted by jk at March 22, 2017 11:03 AM

RE: Reproduction rate: not only are five kids not needed to work the farm (JG makes do with f-o-u-r), but thankfully, half are not going to die before they're five. Looking at Steven Pinker's "Better Angels" as a society gets wealthy, the fertility rate goes down.

(To bring the discussion home, it's a huge reason Erlich was wrong.)

I'm deeply concerned about America's. The green guilt crowd is one reason. I also see sense in Glenn Reynolds's concern that we've made it less fun. There is always some scold checking your car seat, lecturing about nutrition, or ensuring that your ten year old was not home alone in a locked house for two hours. While the marginal benefit of "fun" has decreased, the marginal cost of dollars has gone up.

Whatever -- and I suspect it's an amalgam -- it's worrying.

Posted by jk at March 22, 2017 11:14 AM

I'm worried too, brothers. But the antidote to my fears resides in a dogged defense of the Constitution and its essential limits upon government. Hence, my "rules" above.

Yes, I wrote them for immigrants, as that was the topic du jour, but they are equally applicable to citizens. Agreed.

As for the controversial Congressman King, some are inclined to assume he is a racist and wishes only the worst for muslims, blacks and Catholics. Not me. Personally, I think he is, simply, "deeply concerned about America's" future. And what better way to extend the exceptional history of America and Americans, than for Americans to procreate greater numbers of offspring? There is no racial test here. The only qualifier I used was "western" citizens. By which, I mean, fully committed to the primacy of individual rights.

And I'll push back on nb's claim that "only the hardcore Progs" are anti-baby. They are certainly the number one cheerleader for choosing abortion over parenthood, but the message has been well received by far too many of our ideologically-neutral brothers and sisters (mostly sisters.) President Obama (bad example, I know, since he's a hardcore Prog) famously said he didn't want one of his daughters to be "punished" with a baby. In the best possible light he meant legally prohibited from self-determination, but the idea that nature's greatest miracle is some sort of criminal sentence is off-putting, to say the least. And then there is the birthrate. I'm fine with it being lower than it was a century ago, but for our economy to grow in real terms our population must grow as well. Replacement rate of human capital plus a moderate safety margin is a concept I'm sure my Bernankean blog brother can appreciate and support. (Unless we're all resigned to a Bill Gates future where we're all replaced by well-taxed robots.) And in that case, screw it all because, really, what's the point?

Posted by johngalt at March 22, 2017 3:20 PM

Yeah, more people, yay! More 'Muricans, more immigrants! I think Rep. King agrees with half of that.

Posted by jk at March 22, 2017 3:49 PM
Post a comment










Remember personal info?