Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  If we had open borders ...

Poll

If America becomes the only industrialized nation to completely open its borders to uncontrolled immigration, as Ian suggests, how many people would move here?

More than 4,000,000,000
- 22 (32.4%)
More than 3,000,000,000
- 0 (0%)
More than 2,000,000,000
- 0 (0%)
More than 1,000,000,000
- 2 (2.9%)
More than 500,000,000
- 6 (8.8%)
More than 250,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 100,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 50,000,000
- 8 (11.8%)
More than 25,000,000
- 5 (7.4%)
More than 10,000,000
- 7 (10.3%)
Less than 10,000,000
- 8 (11.8%)

Total Members Voted: 30


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Down

Author Topic: If we had open borders ...  (Read 37062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #90 on: March 14, 2008, 03:51:32 AM »

It's like talking to a wall...

I am the wall that blocks your attempt to get away with evading questions by your tactic of non-responsive, repetitive answers. I know you'd rather talk to the mirror, but try addressing a single point.

You have nothing to fear from the truth. Do not confuse your prejudices or your errors with your identity or you will become what you most loath.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

AntonLee

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #91 on: March 14, 2008, 06:33:09 AM »

I love how the southern fence just happened to get a truck sized hole in it.

trying to stop them is fucking stupid, and a neocon thing to do.
Logged

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #92 on: March 14, 2008, 06:46:11 AM »

I've heard and addressed your faith-based "free market will change all human nature at once" argument many times.  In reality, free market only works among rational people who agree to respect each-other's natural rights and not to initiate violence, that is in a society that goes through natural selection to reduce the number of people who'd whack you on the head and steal your wallet.  Free market didn't help my great-grandparents in Russia when Communists came to take away their property, and they won't help you if a gang of well-armed Communists come to take away yours.  Or are you about to tell me that this land is inherently magical and Communism is impossible here even if same economic conditions are created?

To wrap this up, let's review our immigration disagreement as I sees it:


Things we probably don't disagree on:

  • There's no racism involved in this argument - people are capable of advancing in a capitalist system and achieving success regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, etc, etc, etc.

  • The borders should not be completely closed, as some paleo-conservatives might prefer, because immigration is good for the economy.  As a matter a fact, the vast majority of the American population would believe that allowing the quantity of legal immigration I'd want to allow is radically high - so high that USA would surpass China in population by the end of the century if their current family planning policies stay in place.

  • Government services and regulations that benefit the poor are bad for the economy.  [Examples of such "services" include Welfare (both personal and corporate to "protect" jobs), Food Stamps, agricultural subsidies that lower cost of some basic food items, various programs that help pay the rent and energy bills, subsidized water / sewage / roads to bring down real-estate costs in poor neighborhoods, etc.  Examples of such regulations include hospital emergency room mandates, minimum wage and other employment laws, etc.]

  • Most of the ~6.2 billion non-Americans in this world are poor, and with no entry restrictions most of the people coming to this country would be poor, and their presence in our society would put very strong (but irrational) political pressure to expand those services to the point of collapse.

  • While we disagree on whether restrictions on immigration should exist in the present, we'd agree that they should be done away with at some point in the future.


Things we do disagree on:

  • You want America to become the only country in the world with truly open borders, and you want it done ASAP, as in right now.  I believe this should be phased in over many decades, and will probably take most of the 21st century, and we need merit-based immigration quotas in the meantime.

  • You seem to have irrational faith that all people, or at least most people in this world, are basically good, and would respect your property rights and work hard within the capitalist system.  History shows otherwise: most countries in the world have had or have been on the verge of a communist revolution, and having the right to bear arms would only make this revolution more probable and more bloody.  The only countries not to go communist were the wealthiest of countries, that didn't have too many poor people they could not control, and the countries where the communists were fought back through interventionism by those wealthy countries.

  • You seem to think that the immigrant success stories you've heard thus-far are representative of the types of immigrants we'd get if we had open borders.  The truth is that there has been a lot of natural selection in the immigration process.  I've been through the immigration process myself - I was only 10 years old then, but I still understood how difficult it was for my parents to make it here.  It took years to get an exit visa from Russia, and we only got it because we were ethnic Jews and had a huge lobby campaigning for us in Washington, and my uncle was living here (he got out around 1979, when USSR wanted to prevent the West's boycott of the Moscow Olympics by letting some Jews out of the country).  Getting permission to enter the country was also very difficult.  My mother coached me very carefully on what to say when I was interviewed - to denounce Communism, to say my parents always have been dissidents, etc.  Immigration would be next to impossible for your average Russian, if it wasn't half of Russia would be here by now.  Yes, the ones who voted 80% for Putin, with the rest of the votes going to Communists and Fascists.  Most people in the world have exactly the government that they deserve (with the exception of countries like Taiwan and South Korea, where America imposed a better government than then deserve).  Some might behave differently in America, but from my experience in observing different kinds of immigrants I believe that most would not.

  • You have irrational faith in the idea that other self-interested nations won't exploit America's open borders for their gain.  Remember, just a few decades ago the nations of this world were on the verge of nuking each-other, and nationalism is still very strong in places like Russia, China, and the Middle East.  If Russians (or, more likely, the Chinese) came to be in majority in Alaska, would it remain part of America for long?

  • You have irrational faith in the idea that all the socialist government programs can be done away with overnight, and you make your arguments as if you have a magic wand that would do so.  But in reality there is no magic wand, and getting rid of socialism in this country would be very difficult.  If you crunch the numbers, you will see that the bulk of people opposing socialism in this country are middle-class and have been here for many generations, while most immigrants vote for more socialism.  There are exceptions, of course - the non-socialist immigrants, that is precisely the ones we should selectively allow into this country.

  • You seem to have irrational faith that socialism is the work of the devil and once it's cast out it will stay out for good.  The reality is that it takes perpetual vigilance to keep any country from going socialist, and in order for that to happen the people of that country need to be taught to understand capitalism and why it is good and why socialism is bad.  In order words, the core culture of this country needs to be protected, which is impossible if you have open borders.

  • As an aside...  You claim to be a "Pro-Lifer" - does that mean you support a prohibition on abortion, with the state enforcing criminal laws on women and doctors who have or perform abortions?  That sounds far, far more totalitarian than my proposal of long-term gradualism in opening the borders...

You seem to be unwilling to re-examine your faith-based assumptions in light of many historical examples of mobs of poor people destabilizing societies and throwing them into violent chaos and communist dictatorship.  You seem to be unwilling to examine the nature of the current "Welfare state" that was created in modern first-world countries to prevent this outcome.  You only see an image of the free-market utopia you've imagined, and you want to transport yourself to that utopia in an instant flight of fantasy, without solving the long chain of challenges that need to be resolved in order to make that utopia possible in the real world.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 07:40:57 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

Andy

  • Verbose.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2722
  • Ask me later.
    • View Profile
    • My Blawg
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #93 on: March 14, 2008, 03:42:23 PM »

I'd go so far as to say that the only way a reasonable degree of freedom can be maintained under the state for anything like the foreseeable future, is a republic with limited immigration and probably also a restricted franchise.

Of course this is probably impossible, and we're better of considering the not so foreseeable future.

Oh, and Anton when you call immigration restriction a "neocon thing to do" you are offering further proof that whatever meaning that word had is long gone.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #94 on: March 15, 2008, 03:05:22 AM »

I've heard and addressed your faith-based "free market will change all human nature at once" argument many times.


The free market doesn't change human nature. It is simply the best system, given the attributes of human nature and the flexibility required in order to adapt to changing conditions and needs.

In fact, if you weren't taking a statist position on this issue, you would be the first to admit that the free market is the only system that doesn't attempt to "change human nature at once" or in any time frame at all.

Quote
In reality, free market only works among rational people who agree to respect each-other's natural rights and not to initiate violence, that is in a society that goes through natural selection to reduce the number of people who'd whack you on the head and steal your wallet.  Free market didn't help my great-grandparents in Russia when Communists came to take away their property, and they won't help you if a gang of well-armed Communists come to take away yours.  Or are you about to tell me that this land is inherently magical and Communism is impossible here even if same economic conditions are created?

If you want to prevent an invasion of parasites, then you simply remove the incentive for them to arrive or to stay here:

1. No state welfare, education, medical care or housing for non-citizens.

2. No more naturalized citizens.

Quote
Government services and regulations that benefit the poor are bad for the economy.  [Examples of such "services" include Welfare (both personal and corporate to "protect" jobs), Food Stamps, agricultural subsidies that lower cost of some basic food items, various programs that help pay the rent and energy bills, subsidized water / sewage / roads to bring down real-estate costs in poor neighborhoods, etc.  Examples of such regulations include hospital emergency room mandates, minimum wage and other employment laws, etc.]

While getting rid of these things for citizens is probably not politically feasible in the near future, eliminating them for aliens would be easy; much easier than building walls and requiring state approval for anyone who wants the "privilege" to work, rent or drive.

Quote
Most of the ~6.2 billion non-Americans in this world are poor, and with no entry restrictions most of the people coming to this country would be poor, and their presence in our society would put very strong (but irrational) political pressure to expand those services to the point of collapse.

Wrong. If we were foolish enough to open the door to unrestricted immigration without first removing the availability of state health, education and welfare programs to aliens ( very unlikely), then, given the problems that this foolish policy would cause, the political pressure to remove these programs for aliens would be overwhelming.
Quote
You want America to become the only country in the world with truly open borders, and you want it done ASAP, as in right now.  I believe this should be phased in over many decades, and will probably take most of the 21st century, and we need merit-based immigration quotas in the meantime.

While this is probably the most that we can expect and that's being optimistic, it is still wrong. Making it "merit" based only makes it more unjust and has the politically destabilizing effect of creating an over-class of aliens who use citizens to preform their menial labor. This is a sure recipe for disaster.

Quote
You seem to have irrational faith that all people, or at least most people in this world, are basically good, and would respect your property rights and work hard within the capitalist system.  History shows otherwise: most countries in the world have had or have been on the verge of a communist revolution, and having the right to bear arms would only make this revolution more probable and more bloody.  The only countries not to go communist were the wealthiest of countries, that didn't have too many poor people they could not control, and the countries where the communists were fought back through interventionism by those wealthy countries.

You have this prejudice that foreigners are somehow inferior to us and that even after going through the self screening process of having the courage to start a new life in an alien environment, that they will remain a poor and exploited underclass, too stupid to advance themselves and seething with resentment.

This is not representative of the behavior of immigrants to countries that have freedom of commerce and no state handouts.

Quote
You seem to think that the immigrant success stories you've heard thus-far are representative of the types of immigrants we'd get if we had open borders.  The truth is that there has been a lot of natural selection in the immigration process.  I've been through the immigration process myself - I was only 10 years old then, but I still understood how difficult it was for my parents to make it here.  It took years to get an exit visa from Russia, and we only got it because we were ethnic Jews and had a huge lobby campaigning for us in Washington, and my uncle was living here (he got out around 1979, when USSR wanted to prevent the West's boycott of the Moscow Olympics by letting some Jews out of the country).  Getting permission to enter the country was also very difficult.  My mother coached me very carefully on what to say when I was interviewed - to denounce Communism, to say my parents always have been dissidents, etc.  Immigration would be next to impossible for your average Russian, if it wasn't half of Russia would be here by now.  Yes, the ones who voted 80% for Putin, with the rest of the votes going to Communists and Fascists.  Most people in the world have exactly the government that they deserve (with the exception of countries like Taiwan and South Korea, where America imposed a better government than then deserve).  Some might behave differently in America, but from my experience in observing different kinds of immigrants I believe that most would not.

As you already admitted, most ex-Soviet immigrants are milking the system. The way to eliminate this problem is a policy of open immigration which, in itself, will necessitate the elimination of statist programs and naturalized citizenship for aliens. Those who do not behave in a civilized manor will either not make it here and leave on their own or their behavior will get them deported.

Quote
You have irrational faith in the idea that other self-interested nations won't exploit America's open borders for their gain.  Remember, just a few decades ago the nations of this world were on the verge of nuking each-other, and nationalism is still very strong in places like Russia, China, and the Middle East.  If Russians (or, more likely, the Chinese) came to be in majority in Alaska, would it remain part of America for long?

If they could come here and make a life for themselves without any help (actually interference) from the state, they would become the most patriotic Americans of all, especially because they were welcomed free men and not citizen-slaves to the state.

Quote
You have irrational faith in the idea that all the socialist government programs can be done away with overnight, and you make your arguments as if you have a magic wand that would do so.  But in reality there is no magic wand, and getting rid of socialism in this country would be very difficult.  If you crunch the numbers, you will see that the bulk of people opposing socialism in this country are middle-class and have been here for many generations, while most immigrants vote for more socialism.  There are exceptions, of course - the non-socialist immigrants, that is precisely the ones we should selectively allow into this country.

With an open immigration policy, aliens cannot be allowed to participate in socialist programs, nor to become citizens.
Quote
You seem to have irrational faith that socialism is the work of the devil and once it's cast out it will stay out for good.  The reality is that it takes perpetual vigilance to keep any country from going socialist, and in order for that to happen the people of that country need to be taught to understand capitalism and why it is good and why socialism is bad.  In order words, the core culture of this country needs to be protected, which is impossible if you have open borders.

Because of the environment for aliens that is necessarily engendered by an open immigration policy, it is the aliens who through necessity and the familiarity brought about by daily exposure to the realities of the marketplace, will be first to understand and appreciate capitalism. It is from the aliens that the citizens will learn.

Quote
As an aside...  You claim to be a "Pro-Lifer" - does that mean you support a prohibition on abortion, with the state enforcing criminal laws on women and doctors who have or perform abortions?  That sounds far, far more totalitarian than my proposal of long-term gradualism in opening the borders...

I believe that after about three months, the unborn child has a functional nervous system and sufficient human attributes to possibly be considered a person. If there's any doubt about this proposition, then I believe that it is better to err on the side of caution where the life of a person is involved."First, do no harm."

We don't need a state in order to have governments that protect people from murder, but if there is a state that monopolises the use of force, then I see no reason why laws against murder are more totalitarian if they protect everyone equally.

Quote
You seem to be unwilling to re-examine your faith-based assumptions in light of many historical examples of mobs of poor people destabilizing societies and throwing them into violent chaos and communist dictatorship.  You seem to be unwilling to examine the nature of the current "Welfare state" that was created in modern first-world countries to prevent this outcome.  You only see an image of the free-market utopia you've imagined, and you want to transport yourself to that utopia in an instant flight of fantasy, without solving the long chain of challenges that need to be resolved in order to make that utopia possible in the real world.

Underclasses and unstable groups with greater inclination toward criminality and gang behavior are the result of the oppression and perverse incentives of the state. The typical statist "solution" to state caused problems are more state interference, leading to further, more difficult, problems. Open immigration, for the reasons I outlined above, is an important way to reverse this destructive, anti-liberty process.

Just as you make a statist argument for immigration regulations, you could also make an even scarier argument for population control regulations, environmental regulations, business regulations, agricultural regulations, racial regulations, employment regulation or medical regulations.

The list is endless, but all these arguments have one thing in common and that is that all state regulations, which are miserable failures at bringing about their objectives and which all have unintended consequences, fail to take into account the self correcting (self regulating) nature of the free market.

Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #95 on: March 15, 2008, 05:00:04 AM »

Quote
You want America to become the only country in the world with truly open borders, and you want it done ASAP, as in right now.  I believe this should be phased in over many decades, and will probably take most of the 21st century, and we need merit-based immigration quotas in the meantime.

While this is probably the most that we can expect and that's being optimistic, it is still wrong.

If you agree with me that it would probably take the rest of the 21st century to get rid of existing socialism in this country (and, in my opinion, to get rid of the extreme poverty in the third world that makes them prone to socialism, which is the other prerequisite to having open borders), then our disagreement is simply a matter of fantasy vs reality.  I'm talking about a realistic vision for bringing this about, and you're fantasising about your magic wand...


Making it "merit" based only makes it more unjust and has the politically destabilizing effect of creating an over-class of aliens who use citizens to preform their menial labor. This is a sure recipe for disaster.

Uh oh, now you're afraid of merit-based immigration because Americans can't compete with the world's best and brightest?  Who's the xenophobe now, ha?

The truth is America has always had a crude merit-based immigration system: in took health and courage and some money to make it here.  This only changed when powerful lobbying groups started saying "no more Chinamen" or "more Jews please" (though sadly not in time for the Holocaust), and it deteriorated further when the majority of the immigrants started simply walking in from the south.  I ask again, why should some Che-worshiping manual laborer from Latin America have this advantage over an objectivist Ph.D from India?

And, yes, Joe Sixpack will have to work harder to compete with the new immigrants, that's life.  But that doesn't mean the dumbest guy always has to do the dishes at minimum wage as if it was a zero-sum game - absence of cheap uneducated labor encourages labor-saving innovation, dish-washing robots and all!

Model minorities have typically been good for the societies they've entered into, and the more of them we get the better.  Malaysia, for example, does have its ethnic tensions with its economically-dominant Chinese minority, but having a long-standing tradition of diversity America is sure to do better, and I would still pick Malaysia over like Venezuella (where poor people = socialism) any day of the week!

I won't bother with all the details of the point-based merit formula, but it would obviously involve education, career history, and other accomplishments, as well as political leanings.  Knowledge of English would be an important component (funny, I remember some liberals I know started learning French after Bush got reelected to increase their chances in Canada).  And anyone caught crying at a Michael Moore movie will be deported immediately - no questions asked, no excuses accepted!

If we cap the immigration numbers at say 0.6% of current population per year, that's at least 87 million new immigrants by 2050, but more in reality because that calculation ignores population growth from natural births (and immigrants have higher birth rates), and there would of course still be some illegal immigration falling through the cracks.  That would start at just under 2 million legal immigrants / refugees a year, and hopefully we could reduce the flow of illegals to under 100,000 a year, compared to 1 mil legal and 0.5 mil illegal we currently get.  That percentage cap can be raised in the future, but we should give "we only like poor immigrants" xenophobes like Markuzick here enough time to adjust...  :lol:


(I may reply further when I have the time.)
« Last Edit: March 15, 2008, 05:05:41 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #96 on: March 15, 2008, 06:58:47 AM »

If you agree with me that it would probably take the rest of the 21st century to get rid of existing socialism in this country (and, in my opinion, to get rid of the extreme poverty in the third world that makes them prone to socialism, which is the other prerequisite to having open borders), then our disagreement is simply a matter of fantasy vs reality.  I'm talking about a realistic vision for bringing this about, and you're fantasising about your magic wand...

You're fantasizing if you think that you can use socialism to protect the future of liberty.

It's by getting rid of immigration socialism, with the simple expedients of open immigration combined with the exclusion of aliens from socialistic programs, that we can fast track to the embrace of liberty by the citizenry.

Making it "merit" based only makes it more unjust and has the politically destabilizing effect of creating an over-class of aliens who use citizens to preform their menial labor. This is a sure recipe for disaster.
Quote
Uh oh, now you're afraid of merit-based immigration because Americans can't compete with the world's best and brightest?  Who's the xenophobe now, ha?

No. It's because it removes balance and creates a situation where immigrants are seen as an exploitative elite. It's not the aliens that I'm afraid of, but the resentment that such an elitist policy would engender against the aliens, as they push them out of their comfortable positions so that there will be someone available to fill the growing need for menial labor in a growing population.

It would also cause an increase in demands for a higher minimum wage, stronger trade unions, laws to protect job security, all kind of government safety nets and progressive taxes.

These are some of the unintended consequences that we will get when we let socialist busybodies regulate our lives "for our own good".
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #97 on: March 16, 2008, 12:50:27 PM »

How will the permittance of unrestricted immigration possibly benefit liberty if the immigrants (Mexicans) are unable to procure any liberty of their own? Additionally, what flag would these people fly, ours or theirs? Who would teach them our traditions and our history, or keep them out of being utilized as cannon fodder for some political race war and voting platform? If these immigrants do not even know what the constitution is or what their rights are (as free sovereign citizens of any particular state of the union-if applicable), then how would they ever be expected to defend those rights?

I am sorry, Markuzick. I do not see open borders as a first step being successful or logical in the fight for liberty and freedom. Perhaps later, after liberty has been attained (and that's a long shot) will the open border policy ever become a logical possibility. If we continue to be divided, then any energy spent will be exhausted on petty battles over race and equality or other special interests well before the fight for liberty ever presents itself.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #98 on: March 17, 2008, 04:05:22 AM »

We cannot deport America's own home-grown socialists, but lucky for us they're in minority, mainly because of their low birthrates - Darwinism at work I guess.  (Sadly the same thing can be said about Libertarians.  If Ian had four wives and twenty children, I'd respect him a lot more to tell you the truth.  But that's going off-topic.)  We can't deport existing socialists, but at least we can keep new ones from immigrating.  Freedom is a very fragile thing in this world as a whole.  We should be willing to share our freedom (that is, whatever freedom we still have left), but not everyone in the world is worthy of it.  A nation-state, which I said must exist in self-defense from other nation-states like China, is like a giant home-owner's association that can vote on who can or can't move into the neighborhood.  Hopefully a century from now those things will no longer matter, but for now they do.
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #99 on: March 19, 2008, 03:08:03 AM »

How will the permittance of unrestricted immigration possibly benefit liberty if the immigrants (Mexicans) are unable to procure any liberty of their own?

The constitution, flawed as it may be, guarantees the rights of all people, not just citizens, residing in the USA.

In fact, the resident aliens, by being barred from participation in socialistic programs, are, by default, excused from participating in them or being forced to fund them.

In that sense, aliens would have greater liberty than citizens. The real meaning of liberty is not the right to vote or the right to medical care, education, housing, employment or food at taxpayer's expense. It's the right to be left alone.


Quote
Additionally, what flag would these people fly, ours or theirs?

By choosing to live in this jurisdiction, they would be living under the American flag. What flag they fly, if any, is their own business.

Quote
Who would teach them our traditions and our history, or keep them out of being utilized as cannon fodder for some political race war and voting platform? If these immigrants do not even know what the constitution is or what their rights are (as free sovereign citizens of any particular state of the union-if applicable), then how would they ever be expected to defend those rights?

By being kept out of the socialist indoctrination system that's known as public education, it's a sure bet that they would fair better than citizens on all of the concerns that you mention above.


Quote
I am sorry, Markuzick. I do not see open borders as a first step being successful or logical in the fight for liberty and freedom. Perhaps later, after liberty has been attained (and that's a long shot) will the open border policy ever become a logical possibility. If we continue to be divided, then any energy spent will be exhausted on petty battles over race and equality or other special interests well before the fight for liberty ever presents itself.

So you see immigration socialism as a step on the path toward liberty, but I see greater liberty as a step toward liberty and open immigation as the single most expedient way to get there.
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #100 on: March 19, 2008, 03:18:39 AM »

Markuzick, you are missing my point entirely, perhaps purposefully. You play with words as though it justifies your beliefs, but you cannot expect your definition of greater liberty to be the sole factor of everything. A Mexican immigrant (illegal) does not support and defend the republic, and though you believe this to be unimportant, it does not erase the fact that this makes them your enemy. You can claim that they have more liberty because they do not have to obey our laws and fall under the jurisdiction of any government, but this also means that they do not support traditional authority or even have to respect your rights to property and life.

And thus, my point is hopefully made clear; you are divided and must now fight a war on two fronts if you ever expect to defeat obtrusive government.

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #101 on: March 19, 2008, 03:41:07 AM »

We can't deport existing socialists, but at least we can keep new ones from immigrating.
 

1. They will be coming here to escape socialism, so a far smaller percentage of immigrants than citizens will be likely to be socialists.

2. Those who are socialists will be unable to vote anyway.

3. By being free of subjection to socialist programs and indoctrination, those immigrants that started off with socialist beliefs will soon learn the relative advantage of living with individual responsibility as compared with the hapless citizen who is bred to be a slave. They will be the first to reject socialism and the citizens will learn from and, I hope, follow their example.


Quote
Freedom is a very fragile thing in this world as a whole.  We should be willing to share our freedom (that is, whatever freedom we still have left), but not everyone in the world is worthy of it.
 

Each person's freedom is not yours to share or withhold.

Every person who pursues freedom without the expectation of state welfare and is able to establish  an economic foothold for himself, is more worthy of freedom than someone who has done nothing but get born to the right parents.

Quote
A nation-state, which I said must exist in self-defense from other nation-states like China,

By erecting a great wall?  :roll:

Quote
is like a giant home-owner's association that can vote on who can or can't move into the neighborhood.  Hopefully a century from now those things will no longer matter, but for now they do.

An association that is forced upon unwilling participants that controls land and people that/whom it has no right to own.

Your philosophy amounts to: "By submitting to slavery today, we will, somehow, reap a windfall of liberty in 100 years."


« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 07:26:11 AM by markuzick »
Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Alex Libman

  • Guest
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #102 on: March 19, 2008, 07:33:59 AM »

They will be coming here to escape socialism, so a far smaller percentage of immigrants than citizens will be likely to be socialists.

Like Mark pointed out a few shows ago, the Massholes moving north aren't subject to instant conversion on I-93...


Those who are socialists will be unable to vote anyway.

You still don't get it.  Giving people the vote and letting them vote themselves into socialism was done in self-defense to prevent violent revolution.  (Though modern liberals are more likely to achieve the same result through civil disobedience.)  You think politics is some kind of a Sim video game where you can do anything you want with complete disregard for reality.  The reality is that it takes a certain force to keep poor people from whacking you on the head and taking your stuff, and you're trying to weaken that force and sabotage the floodgates keeping billions of poor people out.

A free society is only possible when you have lots of well-educated, armed middle-or-upper-class people and as little poor people around as possible.  The more poor people you have around, the more socialism you need to keep them content.


By being free of subjection to socialist programs and indoctrination, those immigrants that started off with socialist beliefs will soon learn the relative advantage of living with individual responsibility as compared with the hapless citizen who is bred to be a slave. They will be the first to reject socialism and the citizens will learn from and, I hope, follow their example.

Yes, history is filled with examples of majority-poor societies working hard to lift themselves out of poverty, which often takes several generations, with neither colonialism nor socialism nor any other form of violence what-so-ever.  Just look at how well it works in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe, South Asia, etc! </SARCASM>  :roll:


Each person's freedom is not yours to share or withhold.  Every person who pursues freedom without the expectation of state welfare and is able to establish an economic foothold for himself, is more worthy of freedom than someone who has done nothing but get born to the right parents.

Yes, but the entire 6.5 billion (and growing) mob of humanity cannot achieve freedom by coming to America!  It is in the best interests of those already living here to let the best of would-be immigrants compete for this privilege, and only let in a reasonable amount every year.  All other first-world countries are doing that, to varying degree of success, and for America to be the only first-world country to open itself to an endless flood of third-world refugees (who don't necessarily love the concept of property rights as much as we do) would be suicide!


By erecting a great wall?  :roll:

If we do enforce immigration limits, the question of the physical wall isn't all that crucial - maybe like 200,000 a year will get in if we have the wall and 300,000 a year if we don't.  If we have open borders, on the other hand...  After a while, the biggest red spot on he population density map would be in North America:

« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 07:42:00 AM by Alex Libman »
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #103 on: March 19, 2008, 07:44:54 AM »

A Mexican immigrant (illegal) does not support and defend the republic, and though you believe this to be unimportant, it does not erase the fact that this makes them your enemy.

1. There will be no illegal immigrants if there is open immigration, except for immigrants deported for committing crimes against people who then manage to sneak back in.

2. Their voluntary choice to come here makes them a more reliable source of people who would be loyal to our society than a citizen that's bred and raised to believe he is a slave.

Quote
You can claim that they have more liberty because they do not have to obey our laws and fall under the jurisdiction of any government, but this also means that they do not support traditional authority or even have to respect your rights to property and life.

Where did you come up with this? Aliens have always had to obey the law. To make open immigration possible, they would only be exempt/barred from socialistic health, education and welfare programs and naturalization.


Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

BKO

  • FTL unAMPlifier Aluminum
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5041
  • Death is only the beginning.
    • View Profile
Re: If we had open borders ...
« Reply #104 on: March 19, 2008, 07:53:24 AM »

Well that is certainly your opinion, Markuzick. I will not argue over what you believe any longer. If you feel that you can trust a dirt poor immigrant from Mexico over any traditionally grounded American, then go right ahead.

Just don't expect me to make the same mistake. ;)
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  If we had open borders ...

// ]]>

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 37 queries.