Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
ARI Media Feed

Open the Borders, End the Housing Glut

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Nothing in your last post demonstrates how immigration is a violation of anyone's rights.

Immigrants taking my money is a violation of my rights through their acceptance of social services provided by the immoral taking of my production which is a violation of my rights.

My rights are to be guarded by the government. That is their moral position.

Check your premise.

When they are not taken by immigrants as whole, I'll accept them as ones that can produce. As it is now, it is at the point of the gun, the government, that I am forced to support them as a portion. That's not in my interest nor is it freedom.

If they can't support their family or themselves, how can they purchase homes to end the glut? That's just bad math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Immigrants taking my money is a violation of my rights through their acceptance of social services provided by the immoral taking of my production which is a violation of my rights.

Well, you know who immigrants emulate when they accept social services?

Americans.

So maybe you should point your objections at the right target. Check your premise. It's obvious here that the welfare system is what is immoral, specially since everyone and his brother's uncle's nephew's sister's kitten's roommate can use it. Blaming immigration for a welfare program is the muddiest kind of thinking I have seen in ages.

Kain Scalia,

A non-social-service using immigrant

Edited by kainscalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check your premise.

I'm not the one who cannot distinguish between the act of emigration and what an immigrant does once they get here. I'm not the one having difficulty understanding the difference between correlation and causation. My premises are thoroughly checked. When you can make those distinctions, I'll consider continuing this conversation.

Edited by RationalBiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long term participants of this forum we both realize that we (or at least I, to speak for myself) often speak in "shoulds".

However, the fact that the government has institutionalized a particular violation of rights does not mean that the principle "a rational man should be free to act to preserve his own life" suddenly is naught.

Yes, but that principle isn't what I was referring to--I was talking about establishing concrete guidelines for immediate action, and I don't think it's possible to establish a *broad* principle that covers *concrete* situations when ALL of the concrete situations involve *some* degree of rights-violation and it's impossible to sort out who did what to whom.

Look at Social Security, for example. If you were to just shut it down tomorrow and say, "That's it, last payment, you're on your own now" because it's a rights-violating system, you'd *simultaneously* be violating the rights of everyone who has paid into the system and has the *right* to receive the benefits that they've been paying for their entire lives.

The *only* way to fix a morass of that kind is to take a bottom-up approach where you first get everyone to agree to the broad principle and then go about trying to find some sort of functional way to dismantle the system that doesn't hurt anyone *too* much (in the sense of suddenly dropping a load on them that is more than they can possibly bear), while still acknowledging that there are going to be dislocations and problems and damage. It's a matter of getting people to accept that a little pain now saves a lot later.

Instead, the two sides I see in this argument are the "principled" side: limits on immigration are a rights violation! and the "I refuse to accept any pain whatsoever and I'll shoot anyone who tries to interfere with me!" side. Both of you need to realize that there ARE going to be dislocations and that while it's RIGHT to minimize them when possible, *you must accept the dislocations as part of the price of the better future you want*.

You are taking pointless stances because you're ignoring any sort of *particular* context, here, and it's the *particular* contexts that are important in deciding the when/where/how of dismantling something like immigration controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but that principle isn't what I was referring to

Okay, but it is the principle I have been discussing throughout.

If you were to just shut it down tomorrow and say, "That's it, last payment, you're on your own now" because it's a rights-violating system, you'd *simultaneously* be violating the rights of everyone who has paid into the system and has the *right* to receive the benefits that they've been paying for their entire lives.

But then, it's done. It started bad, it ended bad, but it ended. That is the consequence of having pursued a bad policy so long to begin with. There is no way to make 'fair' or 'right' in the end. The best way to end it is just to end it. However the alternative to what your method is not to simply cut the payouts off cold turkey, but to end the payments coming in and settle up with what's left as best you can while cutting out services that have no place being in government anyway. I'm not convinced the slowly removing the bandaid will end up with the bandaid being removed. I'm a rip that sucker off kinda guy I guess. But then I've paid money into SS that I do not expect to see when I retire. People who placed their lives into the hands of government by making themselves dependent will suffer more than people who rationally understood that even though the government is stealing from me, I'm still responsible for my life and I should plan accordingly.

The *only* way to fix a morass of that kind is to take a bottom-up approach where you first get everyone to agree to the broad principle and then go about trying to find some sort of functional way to dismantle the system that doesn't hurt anyone *too* much (in the sense of suddenly dropping a load on them that is more than they can possibly bear)

That's not the only way, it just may be the way other people prefer. But then, lots of people aren't going to prefer having the government stop giving handouts anyway.

You are taking pointless stances because you're ignoring any sort of *particular* context, here, and it's the *particular* contexts that are important in deciding the when/where/how of dismantling something like immigration controls.

I'm not taking a pointless stance (any more than this whole discussion is pointless) but you are entitled to your opinion.

If anything is pointless, it's the idea that these issues will get resolved in any fashion in the my or probably your lifetime. There isn't any indication that anytime in the near or far future we will be done with immigration laws or social security, or the myriad of other intrusions by the government. That is why I think a more hardline lack of toleration is necessary, not a 'remove the bandaid slowly approach'. There is too much emphasis placed on 'democracy' and there is too varied and wide opinions on how much the government should be involved in our lives. I see the trend right now to be more government, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When they are not taken by immigrants as whole...

Please check this premise; can any action by immigrants be taken (or not taken) as a whole? If immigrants can't take collective action, the only thing that would justify force against them would be the condition that immigration itself is a rights violation (which we know is false). I assume you'd agree that immigrants can't take collective action, that there was some confusion with wording, and that you really meant something like, "When they are not taken by a large proportion of immigrants..." If we agree that collective action is impossible, we must move on to dispell a second, trickier, false premise; That means testing for immigration is just.

We know that extorting money for wellfare is force. But, is wellfare reception an extention of wellfare extortion and thus an act of force? Consider that if such reception is force by extention, then it is the government's job to prevent it. Since it is our very government that offers the extorted welfare, we know that in this particular case (a real world example), the government will not do it's job; It cannot both be the protection against and source of such force.

How does this relate to means testing?

Identifying immigrant means testing as a valid protection against welfare extortion requires "A" (that the government be the solution to wellfare extortion) when we know "not A" (that the government is the extortionist). The proper identification of means testing can only be that it is a method of perpetuating welfare extortion; a parasite must not tax its host to the point that the host can no longer sustain it.

Everyone who lives in the US is the recipient of extorted wellfare, in some form, at some time. There is no principle that makes the extortion of wellfare for a native any better than the extortion of wellfare for an immigrant. This is why you often see the following reductio ad absurdum: "US newborns and their parents are as culpable for wellfare extortion as immigrants. Means testing for immigrants is valid. Therefore, means testing for US parents is valid."

I don't believe that the exposure and collapse of the US system of wellfare extortion will lead to anarchy, and I don't know why people think this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything is pointless, it's the idea that these issues will get resolved in any fashion in the my or probably your lifetime. There isn't any indication that anytime in the near or far future we will be done with immigration laws or social security, or the myriad of other intrusions by the government. That is why I think a more hardline lack of toleration is necessary, not a 'remove the bandaid slowly approach'. There is too much emphasis placed on 'democracy' and there is too varied and wide opinions on how much the government should be involved in our lives. I see the trend right now to be more government, not less.

Yeah, but changes can occur quite quickly once you get people to change their premises, so I think this trend won't continue.

I'm all in favor of taking a hard-line track *in principle*, which is, as you said, the only way the band-aid will ever get removed completely. However, the hard-line approach will probably only result in the band-aid being removed *slowly*, and I think people need to realize that. It's not that you should take a soft approach (that would be a very bad idea!) but that you should recognize that the hard-line approach is not going to result in an instantaneous fix.

It's still more important to get people to change their premises than to argue over how to dismantle the programs. With support, the programs can be dismantled very quickly and efficiently.

As for only irrational people suffering if the band-aid gets removed quickly without a look at the consequences, this is nonsense. Perfectly rational people have been put into situations where they've been *unable* to do things like properly save for retirement without shouldering an impossible load. What are they supposed to do? Live in absolute squalor and hope they die before inflation diminishes their savings too much? Forgo everything and anything they want so they can work 80 hours a week?

When you're faced with a choice like that there *is* no rational answer. It's irrational to rely on the government--but it's not rational to live your life in misery, either.

Vigorously removing a band-aid is counterproductive if it starts the wound bleeding again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for only irrational people suffering if the band-aid gets removed quickly without a look at the consequences, this is nonsense.

Fortunately that is not what I said as I try to avoid making non-sensical statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never got the whole idea of establishing quotas for "backwards" countries (besides the fact that it's racism). I mean, if they want to come here and get out of whatever situation they're in, aren't they automatically smart?

Edited by Sir Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...