Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 30. (Read 28705 times)

It's kinda sad pitiful that anything you disagree with is seen as violence, rape, murder, and extortion.

You're by no means boring me. I love gnawing on stubborn bones. But, as I said before, you're more than welcome to join or start a restricted entry community. You just can't force people to stay there who don't want to stay.

It's kind of sad that keeping your hands to yourself is seen as "outlandish".

I admire you for trying so hard to defend such an outlandish position   We don't agree but its been a pleasure looking at your ideas.  Since we risk boring one another, I'll stop now.

Yes. Anything over 99.99999999999999999999999% of the population is sufficient.

In case you still haven't got it, You are talking to an Anarchist.

What if the State is acting on behalf of the majority of the people?  If a simple majority is not enough, is there a percentage of the population above which you'd respect their wishes?

And apparently, you can't read either:

Sigh.  Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

You still haven't provided a benefit to your open borders idea?  You have to be able to think of one?

Sigh. Cephalic ossification.

They are starving.  They won't lose.  Norway has oil so it can afford to feed them.  And as Norway has signed the European Charter of Human Rights, it has to provide housing for all it allows in.

Its nice you have such a generous policy.  I can see why open borders is good for the poor people of the world.  I can't see how it benefits Norway to take in those millions. 

Question for you.  Of course you will give these people the vote. If the new immigrants vote to have Sharia in Norway, will you respect their democratic rights and obey Sharia law yourself? 

You're dodging the answer, lol.

My position is quiet logical, if all borders were open you wouldn't have a small country taking 10m immigrants. Because a such a move would make no sense, they'd distribute across wichever coutnry pays best, once Norway is saturated it wouldnt make any sense to move there. (so you'd never reach 10m to norway)

So, your question is impractical. It simply wouldnt happen if borders were open. But for sake of the argument if you really believe 10m ppl would desire to move to Norway i think they should, worst case scenario is that i'd purchase shares in a security services agency and profit from it, the immigrants however would lose on it.

Cleverly dodged the question   There is no question of all borders being open.  The UK is taking over 200,000 refugees and immigrants per year and thats as much as we can handle here. 

I return to my question - could Norway take 10 million immigrants now?

All borders should be open yes.

You are not comparing like with like in that you are comparing less than 200k East European immigrants to 10s of millions from the rest of the world. 

I return to my question - could Norway take 10 million immigrants now?  Would you open the border to all who want to come to Europe from anywhere in the world?

Maybe you missed the part way up at the start of the discussion where I said "You're welcome to live in an area that restricts who can live there"

The benefit is that you don't have a state extorting the entire society to enforce an immigration policy that only a portion of the society supports.

And you're completely ignoring the fact that they would have to get here on their own dime.

Also:
Reads like if a physicist wrote the constitution. I like.

We had for a while pretty much unlimited labour from east europe, yes idiots kept complaining, while entrepreurs kept booming. Globalism is maturing, this is the game. Either profit from it or stay the hell out of our way while we profit.

And no it didnt lower wages, most of the workers that got imported to Norway are simple workers. Higher positions benefited from it.

Thanks Grant.  You've proved my point about immigration lowering wages.  Thats why Norway has such strict immigration controls.  You don't think, even for a second, that Norway could take in 10 million people from East Africa do you?

EDIT: Permits for skilled workers (granted for up to 12 months) and seasonal workers (3 months) can be applied for by jobseekers at a Norwegian Embassy or Norwegian Directorate of Immigration - http://www.udi.no/

Just thought I'd show you that your own Government has no interest in taking in a few million unskilled people.

You already agreed that wages will be pulled down.  There is a famine on in East Africa.  North Africa is in crisis and its people are already risking death in boats trying to make it to Europe. If any Western country allows uncontrolled immigration, tens of millions of people will move there and so far I see no evidence you have any plan how to absorb them. Even if you only take the people of Somalia in, you are taking on a challenge that would overwhelm any peaceful society.  

So far, you have been up front about the huge costs of your open border idea.  But you haven't suggested a benefit.  There must be some good from inviting in these 10s of millions of poor uneducated people who speak no English but are very good at killing infidels.  Whats the advantage that makes the lower wages and increased violence worthwhile ?

Here's your answer to the maximum role of Government. There isn't anything else (there might even be less).


Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
  6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
 6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.   That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.

Troll alert ?

Or maybe you're just a conspiracy-theorist. I'm from Norway and i see how the massive inflow of foreigners has helped enterpreneurs to hire cheap labour to establish business. To put it short, if you don't see how you could benefit from this you are a moron. (this is pure arbitrage, leverage it while it's still available!)