Maximum role of Government? - page 31.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 03:03:38 PM

Oh come on - you already agreed that for the locals, wages will be reduced by uncontrolled immigration. So the only immigration will be from places poorer than yours.

You are importing heavily armed militias and you have the idealist hope they will suddenly give up their fundamental beliefs. And you say that if you are wrong, you will have concealed carry of firearms to defend yourself. Against people who the US Army has been unable to defeat. Really?

Who benefits from lower wages for workers and a more violent society? Remind me again - how is any of this good?

You don't - I'd almost say you're refusing to - see the bigger picture. Richer societies also tend to be more controlled, so we'd be getting skilled workers from there, as well. And no, we're not "Importing violent militias" We're allowing people to come in. Peaceful ones will be treated with friendship, and violent ones will be treated as criminals. Should a violent militia come in, as I said, they will be treated as invaders. Also, you have to ask yourself why the US army is failing to defeat them. The US army is a traditional fighting force, invading, and attempting to defeat a force that is fighting for their homes, and blends in with the indigenous population. This is exactly the position any invading "Hostile militia" would put itself in.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2011, 02:16:08 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 06:29:41 AM

Those are good ideas. Really they are. But how does unlimited immigration from violent societies help? If you convert your people into a minority and the majority is dedicated to establishing their Caliphate, things will be bad for you.

Btw, I come to the US regularly. The 'problem' with Mexican immigrants is like the 'problem' with Polish immigrants in France. Its just a matter of tolerance and I know you guys will work it out as both sides are basically decent and civilised. I would contrast with the problem of African immigration in Europe where the society is struggling with religious killings, honor killings, female circumcision and terrorism.

I hope you can agree with me that setting some limit on such immigration is a decent and civilised thing to do.

I see it as being less of a problem than you do. First, I don't, by a long shot, expect that to be the only immigration. With the economy I expect an Anarchistic or Libertarian society to have, workers will be flooding in from all societies. Second, A libertarian society will be more heavily armed than even the US is today. Open carry will be commonplace, as well as concealed carry, Especially if immigrant violence becomes a problem. Thirdly, There will not be enough of them to make anyone a minority, certainly not all at once. (and if there were, that would rightly be seen and treated as a hostile invasion) Violent individuals would be treated as criminals, peaceful individuals as friends. Darwin would take care of the rest.

Oh come on - you already agreed that for the locals, wages will be reduced by uncontrolled immigration. So the only immigration will be from places poorer than yours.

You are importing heavily armed militias and you have the idealist hope they will suddenly give up their fundamental beliefs. And you say that if you are wrong, you will have concealed carry of firearms to defend yourself. Against people who the US Army has been unable to defeat. Really?

Who benefits from lower wages for workers and a more violent society? Remind me again - how is any of this good?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 06:29:41 AM

Those are good ideas. Really they are. But how does unlimited immigration from violent societies help? If you convert your people into a minority and the majority is dedicated to establishing their Caliphate, things will be bad for you.

Btw, I come to the US regularly. The 'problem' with Mexican immigrants is like the 'problem' with Polish immigrants in France. Its just a matter of tolerance and I know you guys will work it out as both sides are basically decent and civilised. I would contrast with the problem of African immigration in Europe where the society is struggling with religious killings, honor killings, female circumcision and terrorism.

I hope you can agree with me that setting some limit on such immigration is a decent and civilised thing to do.

I see it as being less of a problem than you do. First, I don't, by a long shot, expect that to be the only immigration. With the economy I expect an Anarchistic or Libertarian society to have, workers will be flooding in from all societies. Second, A libertarian society will be more heavily armed than even the US is today. Open carry will be commonplace, as well as concealed carry, Especially if immigrant violence becomes a problem. Thirdly, There will not be enough of them to make anyone a minority, certainly not all at once. (and if there were, that would rightly be seen and treated as a hostile invasion) Violent individuals would be treated as criminals, peaceful individuals as friends. Darwin would take care of the rest.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2011, 06:06:31 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 05:53:50 AM

Remind me again why you think uncontrolled immigration is a good thing?

I didn't skip the mutilation, I counted it as 'Violence'.

And I think the main reason is that, Living in the US as I do, we don't really have a problem with Africans trying to get in. Maybe that has something to do with how the last group that came over got treated... Our main 'problem' is with mexican immigrants, who come here because of the relative prosperity. And frankly, I think that would continue to be the main issue.

And as I've said, we wouldn't have to 'get' entrenched, we already are.

Do me a favor, and read at least the first post of this thread.

"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."

"Now, here I will differ from some anarchists, in that I do not support the use of retaliatory force, either. I see no need to inflict harm upon others who have harmed you in the past. What is done is done, and there is no turning back the clock. All that can be done is restitution."

Those are good ideas. Really they are. But how does unlimited immigration from violent societies help? If you convert your people into a minority and the majority is dedicated to establishing their Caliphate, things will be bad for you.

Btw, I come to the US regularly. The 'problem' with Mexican immigrants is like the 'problem' with Polish immigrants in France. Its just a matter of tolerance and I know you guys will work it out as both sides are basically decent and civilised. I would contrast with the problem of African immigration in Europe where the society is struggling with religious killings, honor killings, female circumcision and terrorism.

I hope you can agree with me that setting some limit on such immigration is a decent and civilised thing to do.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 05:53:50 AM

Remind me again why you think uncontrolled immigration is a good thing?

I didn't skip the mutilation, I counted it as 'Violence'.

And I think the main reason is that, Living in the US as I do, we don't really have a problem with Africans trying to get in. Maybe that has something to do with how the last group that came over got treated... Our main 'problem' is with mexican immigrants, who come here because of the relative prosperity. And frankly, I think that would continue to be the main issue.

And as I've said, we wouldn't have to 'get' entrenched, we already are.

Do me a favor, and read at least the first post of this thread.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2011, 05:40:09 AM

You do understand that then the situations would be reversed, right?

They would be the invaders, and we would be the entrenched group... and it would be profitable to deal peacefully while deadly to deal violently.

Darwin was a Brit, right? Grin

If all they wanted was profit, the US could have bought them off years ago. But their goal is an Islamic state called the Caliphate that covers the world. Thats why they will never stop attacking Americans and Europeans and all non-Muslims. And your proposal is that we get "entrenched" to fight them ?

In any case, we have established you accept than uncontrolled immigration will lead to a fall in living standards and now that it will bring increased warfare.

You've skipped over the female genital mutilation issue. Understandable as none of us like to think about such savagery but do remember its something you are going to have to decide about if you allow unlimited immigration from East Africa.

Remind me again why you think uncontrolled immigration is a good thing?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

You do understand that then the situations would be reversed, right?

They would be the invaders, and we would be the entrenched group... and it would be profitable to deal peacefully while deadly to deal violently.

Darwin was a Brit, right? Grin

XIU

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Minimal or none, the less the better....

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

You are from US so you should know that your army has fought against the Taliban for 10 years and lost.

Are you 100% sure you want to move them to your country?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 05:17:13 AM

The issue is why people won't vote for it. It will reduce living standards.

I think you seriously underestimate the friction uncontrolled immigration from violent societies will cause. Let me give you 2 other things to think about:
1. Female genital mutilation is practiced all over East Africa. How would you prevent it being done here after your unlimited immigration has taken place? Or are you simply going to say their women are their property and they can do as they please?
2. The ability to take down aircraft is well established in Afghanistan and Somalia. The US Army does not have the ability to defeat them in their homelands. If you allow uncontrolled immigration, you will have their militias in your community with their clan structures and they will insist on sharia law. What you going to do? Leave?

You're from the UK, so I understand your inability to see what would happen in a truly libertarian or anarchistic society the minute someone gets violent.

Here's a hint:

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2011, 04:08:13 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 03:57:47 AM

England is a democracy so a policy of unlimited immigration would require a political party to propose it and win elections. Feel free to suggest a benefit to your idea as I can't see how anyone would go door to door asking people to vote for such a daft idea.

The US used to have that policy, even had it engraved on a statue... I'd also like to point out that it was at a time of great prosperity...

But regardless, I don't believe that a Libertarian and certainly not Anarchist society will ever come about via a vote. Primarily because voting requires Government OK. If it changed anything, it would be illegal.

The issue is why people won't vote for it. It will reduce living standards.

I think you seriously underestimate the friction uncontrolled immigration from violent societies will cause. Let me give you 2 other things to think about:
1. Female genital mutilation is practiced all over East Africa. How would you prevent it being done here after your unlimited immigration has taken place? Or are you simply going to say their women are their property and they can do as they please?
2. The ability to take down aircraft is well established in Afghanistan and Somalia. The US Army does not have the ability to defeat them in their homelands. If you allow uncontrolled immigration, you will have their militias in your community with their clan structures and they will insist on sharia law. What you going to do? Leave?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 03:57:47 AM

England is a democracy so a policy of unlimited immigration would require a political party to propose it and win elections. Feel free to suggest a benefit to your idea as I can't see how anyone would go door to door asking people to vote for such a daft idea.

The US used to have that policy, even had it engraved on a statue... I'd also like to point out that it was at a time of great prosperity...

But regardless, I don't believe that a Libertarian and certainly not Anarchist society will ever come about via a vote. Primarily because voting requires Government OK. If it changed anything, it would be illegal.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2011, 03:52:09 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 03:41:50 AM

So you accept that unlimited immigration to England from Somalia will result in a fall of living standards for English workers as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept.

That alone means your whole idea is a waste of time. Why would anyone vote for a policy that explicitly sets out to make them poorer? Its never going to happen.

I could go on to point out that Somalia itself is a libertarian paradise along the lines you propose. No state. No police. No army. But what's the point?

Vote? I'd like to point out that in our informal little poll, that scenario is winning. And again you make an assumption: "as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. "

Who's to say it won't be the English workers driving down the price, trying to squeeze out the Somalis?

I admit I didn't think of the English reducing their standard of living below that of Somalis.

England is a democracy so a policy of unlimited immigration would require a political party to propose it and win elections. Feel free to suggest a benefit to your idea as I can't see how anyone would go door to door asking people to vote for such a daft idea.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2011, 03:41:50 AM

So you accept that unlimited immigration to England from Somalia will result in a fall of living standards for English workers as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept.

That alone means your whole idea is a waste of time. Why would anyone vote for a policy that explicitly sets out to make them poorer? Its never going to happen.

I could go on to point out that Somalia itself is a libertarian paradise along the lines you propose. No state. No police. No army. But what's the point?

Vote? I'd like to point out that in our informal little poll, that scenario is winning. And again you make an assumption: "as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept. "

Who's to say it won't be the English workers driving down the price, trying to squeeze out the Somalis?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 07, 2011, 07:13:00 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2011, 06:32:46 PM

Firstly, there is the matter of skilled workers. A bricklayer from Somalia will always accept lower wages than one from London. The Somali sleeps in a hostel and sends his disposable money home to his starving family. The Cockney has to pay rent for his family in London. If the Cockney accepts Somali wages, his family will be evicted. I can't see how forcing skilled workers into homelessness is good for our society.

Secondly, I don't want to live in a society where the majority don't speak your language, is illiterate in their own language, have a religion that regards you as a sub human kaffir, regards your culture as decadent and feels the right to kill you if you make a cartoon they disapprove of.

Personally I like living in a society where most people speak English, where most people feel religion is a private matter and where acts of violence result in the police taking the violent person away. Immigration control makes sense to me for that reason.

OK, so you're concerned about competition, and culture clash.

You make another assumption here: That a bricklayer from Somalia will always work for cheaper. There's no guarantee of that. But I will grant you that competition will reduce the price of labor in that field. But remember the Somali still has to pay for housing, as well as that check back home. So the cost of labor would not go below the cost of housing, making your conclusion that the native bricklayer would be homeless false.

The culture clash is a valid concern, however. So, you should live in a community with restrictions on who can live there. There's no reason you should force your entire society to, however.

So you accept that unlimited immigration to England from Somalia will result in a fall of living standards for English workers as they are forced to reduce their wages to the levels Somalis will accept.

That alone means your whole idea is a waste of time. Why would anyone vote for a policy that explicitly sets out to make them poorer? Its never going to happen.

I could go on to point out that Somalia itself is a libertarian paradise along the lines you propose. No state. No police. No army. But what's the point?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: Grant on July 07, 2011, 05:07:03 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2011, 04:18:12 PM

"We" bankrupted their economies?

Unless you are a senior guy at the IMF, I assume you mean your grandparents helped colonise places. And I assume you are richer as a result of your ancestors' looting Africa and Asia.

My folks had nothing to do with it so less of the "we" please.

Neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with it, however if you happen to be a European or an North-American (like me), our increased standard of living is due to their suffering. Without it we'd be far down the ranks. We enabled and continue to enable this genocide by paying our taxes myfriend.

True story.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2011, 06:32:46 PM

Firstly, there is the matter of skilled workers. A bricklayer from Somalia will always accept lower wages than one from London. The Somali sleeps in a hostel and sends his disposable money home to his starving family. The Cockney has to pay rent for his family in London. If the Cockney accepts Somali wages, his family will be evicted. I can't see how forcing skilled workers into homelessness is good for our society.

Secondly, I don't want to live in a society where the majority don't speak your language, is illiterate in their own language, have a religion that regards you as a sub human kaffir, regards your culture as decadent and feels the right to kill you if you make a cartoon they disapprove of.

Personally I like living in a society where most people speak English, where most people feel religion is a private matter and where acts of violence result in the police taking the violent person away. Immigration control makes sense to me for that reason.

OK, so you're concerned about competition, and culture clash.

You make another assumption here: That a bricklayer from Somalia will always work for cheaper. There's no guarantee of that. But I will grant you that competition will reduce the price of labor in that field. But remember the Somali still has to pay for housing, as well as that check back home. So the cost of labor would not go below the cost of housing, making your conclusion that the native bricklayer would be homeless false.

The culture clash is a valid concern, however. So, you should live in a community with restrictions on who can live there. There's no reason you should force your entire society to, however.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 07, 2011, 04:55:10 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 07, 2011, 03:59:52 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2011, 03:47:03 PM

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live. I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.

Why?

So... Were you planning on answering why having a large influx of workers will be a bad thing, or were you just going to make an unfounded statement, and let it stand?

Firstly, there is the matter of skilled workers. A bricklayer from Somalia will always accept lower wages than one from London. The Somali sleeps in a hostel and sends his disposable money home to his starving family. The Cockney has to pay rent for his family in London. If the Cockney accepts Somali wages, his family will be evicted. I can't see how forcing skilled workers into homelessness is good for our society.

Secondly, I don't want to live in a society where the majority don't speak your language, is illiterate in their own language, have a religion that regards you as a sub human kaffir, regards your culture as decadent and feels the right to kill you if you make a cartoon they disapprove of.

Personally I like living in a society where most people speak English, where most people feel religion is a private matter and where acts of violence result in the police taking the violent person away. Immigration control makes sense to me for that reason.

Grant

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2011, 04:18:12 PM

"We" bankrupted their economies?

Unless you are a senior guy at the IMF, I assume you mean your grandparents helped colonise places. And I assume you are richer as a result of your ancestors' looting Africa and Asia.

My folks had nothing to do with it so less of the "we" please.

Neither me nor my ancestors had anything to do with it, however if you happen to be a European or an North-American (like me), our increased standard of living is due to their suffering. Without it we'd be far down the ranks. We enabled and continue to enable this genocide by paying our taxes myfriend.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 07, 2011, 03:59:52 PM

Quote from: Hawker on July 07, 2011, 03:47:03 PM

You don't care if Africa and Asia empty themselves and their social problems into where you live. I do - immigration of skilled workers that are urgently needed is great but having millions of unskilled immigrants would be a bad idea.

Why?

So... Were you planning on answering why having a large influx of workers will be a bad thing, or were you just going to make an unfounded statement, and let it stand?

Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 31. (Read 28705 times)