The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Terror Australis on July 11, 2009, 07:31:52 AM
-
I believe this is a danger to the state so therefore the reason it is not allowed.
-
Nothing else changes?
It would be pretty shit.
In the context of a free society, it might work out.
-
open ended immigration? THey'd probably just go on and on and on about immigration, doing it, etc.
I really hate open ended things...
-
If the minimum wage was repealed, a lower cost of living as more people would compete more directly for wages, goods, and services.
-
I think Mexican Coke would be cheaper.
-
I think Mexican Coke would be cheaper.
Only after we've repealed the sugar cane quota. Then it will be Mexican Coke paradise.
-
More taco trucks and cheaper landscaping options
-
More taco trucks and cheaper landscaping options
racist
-
More taco trucks and cheaper landscaping options
racist
And nicer car stereos.
-
[youtube=425,350]qdWDJWFoKCE[/youtube]
Oh ya
-
Think what would happen if you werent allowed to go across your state's boundaries without permission. Open borders between the 50 states is one of the reasons we have had such a strong economy. Only with the European Union is another area starting to allow economic freedom of trade (to a degree-they still have VAT taxes and we still regulate and tax interstate trade).
-
I believe this is a danger to the state so therefore the reason it is not allowed.
With the provisos that aliens could not participate in any of the state's health, education or welfare schemes or apply for citizenship, an absolute right for all people to live, work and travel where they choose would bring only the best sort of liberty/opportunity seeking individuals to live among us.
They would have no choice but to create their own voluntary enterprises, dedicated to providing health, education and welfare to their communities, in the form of for profit and non-profit agencies, the cost of which, would, I hope, be 100% tax (not income) deductible. Better yet, they should be exempt from taxes on any programs from which they are excluded.
In time, they would be so much more prosperous than citizens that many would gladly give up their citizenship to join the ranks of aliens that enjoy the benefit of a large degree of voluntary government of their lives.
And so the state would shrink and, I hope, eventually die via privatization, because of the enlightening example of the immigrants' self reliance.
-
Its a confusion to identify open immigration with an increase in immigration. Immigrants already come in thousands and millions illegally.
As to why the state is against immigration, its not because its a "threat". The government would love to have more tax payers. Its simply a tedious facet of modern democracy, coupled with centuries of patriotic propaganda. Governments won't allow free immigration because they want to stay in power, and not be replaced by the opposition who would rely on scare mongering to pick up votes.
The same way the government could actually make more money off legalizing drugs, if they weren't stuck down the path whereby no politician can admit legalizing drugs is the moral and intelligent thing to do, without being voted out of office next term.
-
Its a confusion to identify open immigration with an increase in immigration. Immigrants already come in thousands and millions illegally.
As to why the state is against immigration, its not because its a "threat". The government would love to have more tax payers. Its simply a tedious facet of modern democracy, coupled with centuries of patriotic propaganda. Governments won't allow free immigration because they want to stay in power, and not be replaced by the opposition who would rely on scare mongering to pick up votes.
The same way the government could actually make more money off legalizing drugs, if they weren't stuck down the path whereby no politician can admit legalizing drugs is the moral and intelligent thing to do, without being voted out of office next term.
That's the state responding to market demand; the market demand for tyranny. People do not necessarily get the government that they as individuals want or deserve; they get the government that the market demands.
The only way to change market demand is by education. That may come through books and articles or by setting a successful example for people to follow. The second method is why unlimited immigration that's kept from participation in public health, education and welfare programs, could be the quick path to a stateless society.
The trick will be selling the idea. To do so will require putting the emphasis on cutting off aliens' ability to become parasites of the state or taking over the country by becoming citizens and how much more practical it is to do this than trying to enforce border restrictions.
-
I would love to come if this was the case.I currently do a roaring trade at the local flea markets selling shopping bags because the market is demanding enviro bags which cost a dollar each at the supermarket so I source them from china and undercut the local supermarket by a few cents a bag.Word soon gets around....and it helps me earn some pocket money.....dont you love people's fear of climate change al gore is propagating for me?lol
The enterprising few would certainly not mind travelling to a country without a social security blanket .It is worth pursuing as an idea one day.....
-
I believe this is a danger to the state so therefore the reason it is not allowed.
The welfare state would collapse and everybody would get richer?
-
Think what would happen if you werent allowed to go across your state's boundaries without permission. Open borders between the 50 states is one of the reasons we have had such a strong economy.
That cannot be said loudly and often enough. The explosive economic growth and evolution within the United States during the 19th century was a deliberate result of the "free trade zone" created by the complete abrogation of the power to regulate the movement of goods, services and PEOPLE by the states.
Almost as if the people who argued for the Interstate Commerce Clause had read Adam Smith.
The final abolition of free immigration only came in the 20th Century, after the Progressive revolution and the creation of the Socialist States of America. Socialist states try to regulate immigration and even movement of their populations in-country. And their economies stagnate.
Anyone can read the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers, to see the arguments involved.
Here's a good place to start, the first Anti-Federalist paper, Brutus#1:
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm
Amazing, isn't it, how the abuse of the wording of the Interstate Commerce Clause that we all know so well was predicted right from the start. Hamilton and crowd came back defending it by predicting exactly the benefits we did see.
-
Well for one thing, you would see a lot more affect on middle class and higher jobs. The immigrants would be able to get licenses and education that the lack of today keeps them in wage labor jobs. Doctors, Lawyers, and engineers would move here. If it suddenly happened there would be a few years of low-wages and high population growth. Crime would increase a bit. The economy would grow, because the combined demand of the immigrants and natives would increase prices and job growth would increase.
The immigrants would ghettoize into specific areas. Cities would have quarters for immigrants connected by former nationality. 2 generations later those places will be filled with good restaurants and mixed bilingual couples.
This is of course without gov't manipulation. If gov't was in the mix.
Politicians would take sides on the issue. Proponents would cater heavily to the immigrant vote. Opponents would whip up a frenzy about how the immigrants are fools that are ruining the democratic process.
-
Well for one thing, you would see a lot more affect on middle class and higher jobs. The immigrants would be able to get licenses and education that the lack of today keeps them in wage labor jobs. Doctors, Lawyers, and engineers would move here. If it suddenly happened there would be a few years of low-wages and high population growth. Crime would increase a bit. The economy would grow, because the combined demand of the immigrants and natives would increase prices and job growth would increase.
The immigrants would ghettoize into specific areas. Cities would have quarters for immigrants connected by former nationality. 2 generations later those places will be filled with good restaurants and mixed bilingual couples.
This is of course without gov't manipulation. If gov't was in the mix.
Politicians would take sides on the issue. Proponents would cater heavily to the immigrant vote. Opponents would whip up a frenzy about how the immigrants are fools that are ruining the democratic process.
Allowing immigrants to vote would only corrupt them with power and they would become just like us, but probably worse.
OTOH, two parallel systems of subjects of the state(citizens) versus aliens, who must be responsible for themselves, without the suffocating materialism of the nanny state, will show the disadvantages of participation in the "protective" cocoon of the state in comparison to aliens who will form their own free market based health, education and welfare organisations to serve their communities.
People would begin to quit the state and renounce their citizenship in favor of the greater degree of voluntary governance that, as aliens, they would enjoy in their lives.