I always suggest a sponsorship program whereby open-borders people take in 5 illegal immigrants and are responsible for their housing, food, clothing, education, and healthcare, and are also liable for any crimes they might commit. People balk at that for some reason.
I always suggest a sponsorship program whereby open-borders people take in 5 illegal immigrants and are responsible for their housing, food, clothing, education, and healthcare, and are also liable for any crimes they might commit. People balk at that for some reason.
I suggested something like that to a psychiatrist my wife knows from her earlier career, when we attended a fancy function over a decade ago.
"So when you sign off on a pedophile being safe to release into society, I think he should go live with the one signing him out for a year first."
I honestly thought he'd try to jump me then and there, he was that outraged over me "Making a mockery of the confidence people should have in his profession" (in swedish the "should" would be an imperative, mind).
They used to force butchers and bakers eat their own product in olden days, whenver there was doubt about the product. We need to bring that kind of rules, laws and thinking back I think.
OK, but what do you say to those of us who support open borders in libertarian, not leftist, terms? That is, what about the argument that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" or Friedrich Hayek's "spontaneous order" can be trusted to guide the voluntary movement of human beings across borders as well as the voluntary acts of buyers and sellers in a free market?
Nobody can know how many is too many, just as nobody can know better than a free market how to distribute resources. The Smithian-Hayekian argument is essentially a call for intellectual humility on that point, and a call for trust in the self-regulation of complex systems. Republicans in the Reagan era were better at holding to that small-government principle on the subject of immigration than Republicans in the Trump era are.
Mass-migration via open borders means extinction and genocide for peoples like mine.
There are about 8 500 000 swedes on planet Earth.
There are hundreds of millions of arabs. There's over one and a half billion of black africans.
Guess what free movement does to smaller people letting more proliferate groups into their territory.
Your Smiths and Hayeks didn't talk about race and culture; all their arguments apply solely to "white" cultures and peoples of the time of writing, which is why they cannot be applied universally. You cannot discount race/kultur.
I don't think you mean that your libertarian principles trumps our right to our ancestral territory, culture and very lives.
the problem with free migration is that's it's free.
It should cost a lot to enter a decent country!
They trillions spent in historical infrastructure.
The enormous social wealth from a high trust reciprocal culture.
Not costing for these is an effective subsidy and that's collected by the establishment via increased rents and lower wage bill. Which is why stopping the obvious harm of mass low quality migrants is much harder than it should be.
Are we talking about not vetting people who cross into our country? That they should be able to come and go without us knowing who they are?
We're a sovereign nation and get to decide who comes in. If there's a check in place, then I'm leaning your way. I'd also want us to be able to set limits on how many come in. We, as a sovereign nation, get to decide how many is too many.
If I understand correctly, passports were not even a thing until as recently as the First World War. If people freely crossed borders until that recently, why shouldn't they do so now?
As for "How many is too many?", please see my reply to Ryan Gardner when he asked the same question.
People didn't move freely across border pre WW1. In most places you actually needed internal passports and/or visible means of support, letters of recommendation, and so on to be allowed to leave in the first place, let alone be allowed to settle in a new region or nation.
Identity-papers of some kind was most definitely a "thing" back then. Check up on Ellis Island procedures for europeans coming to the US - the vetting there would be called extreme today, and everyone who came there had been pre-vetted by the shipping company transporting them across the Atlantic.
Oh the sponsor should also top up the migrants tax to an average wage as low wages harm productivity and boost rents. So those negatives also need to be priced into the migrant costs.
I always suggest a sponsorship program whereby open-borders people take in 5 illegal immigrants and are responsible for their housing, food, clothing, education, and healthcare, and are also liable for any crimes they might commit. People balk at that for some reason.
I suggested something like that to a psychiatrist my wife knows from her earlier career, when we attended a fancy function over a decade ago.
"So when you sign off on a pedophile being safe to release into society, I think he should go live with the one signing him out for a year first."
I honestly thought he'd try to jump me then and there, he was that outraged over me "Making a mockery of the confidence people should have in his profession" (in swedish the "should" would be an imperative, mind).
They used to force butchers and bakers eat their own product in olden days, whenver there was doubt about the product. We need to bring that kind of rules, laws and thinking back I think.
A Traditional Chinese Medicine friend of mine told me that, back in the day in China, you didn't pay the doctor UNLESS you got well.
Exactly.
You should pay for medicine via an escrow account.
only if you're alive in 5 years the pharma company gets your money.
What if you are very sick from big pharma's drugs but not dead?
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/the-big-pharma-health-business-model
I avoid big pharma like the plague.
Similarly Judges should know that bail hostels and inmates released from prison should be housed near their families.
Brilliant
Exactly
OK, but what do you say to those of us who support open borders in libertarian, not leftist, terms? That is, what about the argument that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" or Friedrich Hayek's "spontaneous order" can be trusted to guide the voluntary movement of human beings across borders as well as the voluntary acts of buyers and sellers in a free market?
How many is too many?
I'm all about libertarian ideals, but not at the expense of the sovereignty of We The People.
Nobody can know how many is too many, just as nobody can know better than a free market how to distribute resources. The Smithian-Hayekian argument is essentially a call for intellectual humility on that point, and a call for trust in the self-regulation of complex systems. Republicans in the Reagan era were better at holding to that small-government principle on the subject of immigration than Republicans in the Trump era are.
Mass-migration via open borders means extinction and genocide for peoples like mine.
There are about 8 500 000 swedes on planet Earth.
There are hundreds of millions of arabs. There's over one and a half billion of black africans.
Guess what free movement does to smaller people letting more proliferate groups into their territory.
Your Smiths and Hayeks didn't talk about race and culture; all their arguments apply solely to "white" cultures and peoples of the time of writing, which is why they cannot be applied universally. You cannot discount race/kultur.
I don't think you mean that your libertarian principles trumps our right to our ancestral territory, culture and very lives.
the problem with free migration is that's it's free.
It should cost a lot to enter a decent country!
They trillions spent in historical infrastructure.
The enormous social wealth from a high trust reciprocal culture.
Not costing for these is an effective subsidy and that's collected by the establishment via increased rents and lower wage bill. Which is why stopping the obvious harm of mass low quality migrants is much harder than it should be.
"our" politicians are not ours.
Are we talking about not vetting people who cross into our country? That they should be able to come and go without us knowing who they are?
We're a sovereign nation and get to decide who comes in. If there's a check in place, then I'm leaning your way. I'd also want us to be able to set limits on how many come in. We, as a sovereign nation, get to decide how many is too many.
If I understand correctly, passports were not even a thing until as recently as the First World War. If people freely crossed borders until that recently, why shouldn't they do so now?
As for "How many is too many?", please see my reply to Ryan Gardner when he asked the same question.
People didn't move freely across border pre WW1. In most places you actually needed internal passports and/or visible means of support, letters of recommendation, and so on to be allowed to leave in the first place, let alone be allowed to settle in a new region or nation.
Identity-papers of some kind was most definitely a "thing" back then. Check up on Ellis Island procedures for europeans coming to the US - the vetting there would be called extreme today, and everyone who came there had been pre-vetted by the shipping company transporting them across the Atlantic.
Adam Smith was a "Georgist/GeoLibertarian" and as such would tax the land-title and not incomes.
This would tend to up the price of migration leading to less migration.
He was also a plagiarist who stole the pin factory anecdote from Persian medieval writers.
Oh the sponsor should also top up the migrants tax to an average wage as low wages harm productivity and boost rents. So those negatives also need to be priced into the migrant costs.