Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

volco

Regulars
  • Posts

    785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by volco

  1. Democrats might be honest with their welfare state ambitions, but they are certainly the most dishonest bunch when it comes to international relations... I mean having initiated two World Wars and all... Bush gets a lot of rap for getting involved in Iraq and Afghanistan but his administration did it rather honestly and even conceded the lie/mistake about WMDs..... Obama's administration invaded Libya sneakingly, through proxies, and is currently expanding that invasion throughout Africa and the Middle East (Niger Azawad, Sudan, etc). AfriCom is the way Democrats have to wage war in Africa without having to bear the responsibility in front of the World. I could argue that American interventionism is necessary or beneficial to international trade, but still Republicans do it honestly, Democrats invade and kill while receiving Nobel Peace Prizes at the same time. The election of a half German half Kenyan individual is also symptomatic of horrific racism in the Democrat Party. In Dixie it's almost a cliche that patrons of the NAACP are the children or grand children of KKK members. Who is Obama's Public Relations team kidding? ///// Isn't Mitt Romney a HUGE improvement from G.W.Bush? He didn't do bad in Massachusetts as a Mormon in one of the most Liberal states. Actually the religious sect he belongs to is the most American of all religions, it is indigenous, and it has proven to work as a better social adhesive than other Christian sects or otherwise other collectives. He's not even from Utah or the Corridor, so he's used to living among non Mormons just fine, which he proved in Mass. His parents are Mexicans from the very unique settlements in Canada and Mexico that formed to escape Federal intervention on local affairs. We all know that most of what candidates say is regulated by their Public Relations think tanks. I find it forgivable that Ryan had to concede Ayn Rand in exchange for the Religious vote. America is still a Christian country, and if you ever been to a predominantly agnostic country, you might just find some little value in the fact that Americans counter Materialism with Spirituality (as bad as it sounds). For the sake of America's preeminent position and honor in the World, elect a real American, Mitt Romney, and not an elitist poseur who leads a campaign to finally terminate America's blessed exceptionalism. Globalization is inevitable, electing a Conservative will slow down that process, and that is beneficial for America. If you want to further my own and Brazil's interest go ahead and vote Democrat.
  2. Who cares? You're always nitpicking the least relevant sentence of a whole paragraph. It could have been an old photo, or I could not have cared about the new user herself, but about what she had to say. Of course I stand corrected, not that anybody should care. But since you replied, I'm giving you the courtesy of a quid pro quo. My regards GRam
  3. Law and Order SVU is a fantastic show, maybe the only true drama left on tv . I love Mariska's acting, and I see that the next season is just beginning! I understand, and no such a situation would not be fair. But such a perfectly in-between scenario is akin to the ''Ethics of Emergency''. Those are exceptions, not something I would use to judge a whole legal system. In answer to the specific question... if a schizophrenic kills because of lack of meds, is he less guilty of his crime than say a paedophile (another mental illness) who rapes because of a flaw in his hormone treatment? Breivik's case made me investigate the Norwegian penal system (out of indignation that a terrorist children killer would spend the rest of his life in a four star resort secured by female guards) which is the most Progressive (restorative) in the World. On one hand I find it a bit repugnant that criminals are given such a good life, on the other hand I find it admirable how the Norwegian society values human life to the point of trying to make the best of everyone. I have insisted in the past that these welfare arrangement are only possible in cohesive societies, even racially homogeneous societies that resemble a big family But the American (or otherwise) system isn't fair either. A prison sentence doesn't just entail losing liberties, but it is in practice a torture and death sentence. I should have clarified that I don't imagine a purely contractual society arising in New York or Sao Paulo, but in a new frontier, such as seasteading, the space, or maybe the Antarctic desert, where abandoning someone to his or her own luck is amost equivalent (but not 100% equivalent) to a death sentence. I'm not thinking too clearly, I have fasted all day and I can assure you it has been a pure coincidence, I just didn't have time to eat.
  4. That's just it, what 'they' meant by all being connected, and how communitarism and thus altruism is natural. As you said, it's a syllogism; it does hold true that the inventor of a motor owes much to the inventor of the wheel, but that's besides the point . A trite but effective way to see the same situation is the half filled, half empty glass. Thread opener insinuates an individual's success depends on the tribe's previous achievements, Hairnet says his success or lack of thereof is 'totally dependent' on him. It is obvious that anyone's success is a product of both inner and outer forces. A plant's success depends on its own genetic constitution as much as on the soil 'providence' allowed it to be located. But just as the half filled glass, while both POV are equally true, one is more conductive to progress, happiness and dare I say, Reason, than the other. It actually comes down to what Ayn Rand called the perception of a Malevolent or Benevolent Universe.
  5. @Michelle, The insane argument reminds me of a more clear cut example. Child molesters or paedophiles (also maybe off their libido reducing meds). There is such a thing as tragedy. If a person initiates force against an innocent creature, but that person can't actually help it, then.. the victim is entitled not only to compensation but to justice (which might be in practice simple Hammurabi revenge, but it could bring 'closure' which is in itself meager compensation). The perpetrator or aggressor could be confined or isolated to avoid further damage, but to punish/chastise him would be further cruelty since supposedly some paedophiles literally can't help their desires. (have been watcihng Solondz's sagas, Happiness and Life During Wartime) / unrelated to the previous example. We have a long history of an eye for an eye, the Code of Hammurabi. But some relatively recent Anabaptist (Friends, Mennos, and the like) religious communities that abstain from violence have devised another form for protecting their communities from harm. Instead of imprisoning, confining or killing the perpetrator, they 'shun' him or expel him. Of course this is not technically recent. The Greeks and later Romans had the punishment of Expatriation but it was not a social devise but rather a punishment of denigration, or humiliation. I sometimes assume that in an purely contractual society (Objectivist or not), criminals would be forsaken to their own luck, expelled, instead of internally punished. It's also worth noting, particularly in light of David's first post, that most punished criminals have historically been perpetrators of victimless crimes. Imprisonment carries a higher moral danger than expulsion. and back where i began. There is such a thing as a human tragedy, and problems without an answer.
  6. not me Bear! Lionel is calling SOME life hideous, but in the excerpt I quoted she's calling the instinctive obligation of motherhood hideous. After having this first very planned child out of a mid life crisis, she does have another child later in a more sneaky and 'natural' intellectually and morally honest manner (she actually desires another child this time instead of planning it as a life must-do)
  7. I thought you were going to abstain from spoilers! but now that it's out... Is it unconditional love? or dependance and sense of responsability? We don't know. The mother feels ambiguosly guilty. As a matter of fact she can't either dismiss herself of responsability, nor convince herself that it's actually not her fault. So she's trapped. The novel and story in itself is very interesting and gives room for a lot of debate, and I encourage that. However I'm talking about Lionel Shriver in general. I see this conflict between her 'Liberal' 'Christian' Altruist upbringing and a very late semi awakening to the fact that maybe egoism is not a synonim for evil = in fact that it can be the opposite. In 'Game Control', the novel about Demography and Pop Control, the main female character wants to help Kenyans (and Humanity) through Planned Parenthood until she realizes that she's doing more harm than good, and switches to the other extreme before realizing in a depressing episode of defeat, that neither 'plan' would work. One for being impractical, the other for being immoral. And both plans are both impractical and immoral interchangeably. I believe I consider L. Shriver so interesting for Objectivists because she (belatedely) arrives to some of the same conclusions, but probably having never read Ayn Rand or any other similar author. I strongly recommend her novels, but I'll try to continue debating her in this thread.
  8. On the danger of rethoric. - Garet Garrett Language was created as a tool for our service. In time it can be argued that we have become servants to language. On the Thread Opener's questions> It is as absurd as asking what was first the chicken or the egg... 1. Sort of, actually none of your biz, it is a between Ayn Rand, G-d and myself. No need to advertise my labels. 2. I left private elementary school, took very hard exams to get into a prestigious public high school that depends on the University of Buenos Aires. It was not a wise choice. No doubt my comfortable middle class life facilitated my passing the entrance exams, but richer kids than I didn't, and poorer kids did. 3. The State (actually the University of Buenos Aires) paid for my secondary education/propaganda. I did learn Latin and Math, but in Geography I had to learn about the Chinese Cultural Revolution in a GOOD LIGHT. French was given more importance than English, and I guess that says it all. I had to learn English myself. 4. No homeschooling but indeed Self Schooling. As Borges said 'I had to interrumpt my education to go to school' 5. English is not my mother tongue and I was taught French and Latin in school. I've learnt English thanks to the SAP function in my tv and to the FOX network. Internet also helped. Eventually I took ETS' TOEFL, but I paid for it myself.
  9. Margarett Ann Shriver She changed her name to Lionel when she was a teenager but she's clearly heterosexual. It's funny that her last name which she didn't change, sounds like writer in German, and she's a succesful writer. Born to a Christian Democrat family from North Carolina she renounced her faith, country and name and became not only an expat, but an archetypical expat. I got to know her after watching 'We need to talk about Kevin' mainly because I have a crush on the leading role, Tilda Swinton (Orlando, Julia, The Deep End, I am Love) The film disturbed me but left me itching... so I read the novel. I have to say that it is pretty rare that a novel and a film complement each other soooooo well. The film adaptation was done by Lynnie Ramsey whom I deeply from my gut, dislike. The story is about a succesful woman who barely approaching the ticking clock choses to have a child. It is a very conscious, premeditated decision. After birth, she doesn't connect with her child, and the rest of the novel (besides the very funny and thrilling spoilers) deals about the surrogatory role of a mother, and the altruism it entails. The protagonist can't tolerate that, but she feels somewhat guilty for it. excerpt I am doing Lionel Shriver a dis-service by describing this novel so poorly, but I am convinced this good material for Objectivists as we are able to see inside the mind of an altruist who is genuinely and honestly conflicted by the reality of individual life. This theme is explored in other novels of her, particularly 'GAME CONTROL', a very good and fun novel about Demography, Population Control, and Africa. I want and need to share this author with Objectivists because her instinctive audience is very far from it as she's somewhat of a Liberal Icon. However she's a transgressor within her circle, and I think we could 'help her', although that's not the point. The point is sharing this astounding author who is cruelly honest in her self doubt and her doubt about Liberal or Left politics and ethics in general. Priceless.
  10. Well I'm quiet sure that Ernest Bramah's 'The Secret of the League' is a precursor to Atlas and a must read for any Ayn Rand fan or Objectivist. and is even earlier than The Driver so no need to go there.
  11. Could it be maybe that she saw in Marilyn Monroe pride in being beautiful in a time when modesty was required and expected from women. (pride in one own's body is the opposite of modesty, but not as far opposite as to constitute non subtle exhibitionism; very much like Howard Roark who admired his own body but was also jealous of it, and who enjoyed nudism so long as he was alone by the quarry, the lake, or Wynand's yacht) Ayn Rand explicitly condemned Pornography while defending its right to be legal (Capitalist Manifesto), but I highly doubt that she considered Playboy 'Pornography' since it doesn't show any sexual act, it simply celebrates the beauty of woman. Back to The Fountainhead, the novel that deals with beauty, let's remember the Temple of the Human Spirit. As a central object (of worship or admiration) is the shape the sculpture of a beautiful naked woman. The (misled) public interprets this as pornography, when in the architect's and the author's mind it was a celebration or ode to the most honorable and downright objectively beautiful qualities. @Suvine, Read or re read The Fountainhead and you'll find a renewed pride in having posed for Playboy.
  12. I believe my career would better benefit from joining Opus Dei rather than the Freemasons, but I'm considering Chabad Lubavitch as well. So many options, it's like a fraternity for the after college life, or a gang for prison. Dn't you feel like the prettiest girl of the dance? Considering Saint Balaguer Escriva founded the order to exalt the value of Laicism and role of Laic life during the times of the Rerum Novarum (modernity), and that they are a staunchly anticommunist bunch, I believe they might further my career without making me either do charity or recognize a supernatural power (after all the Pope is a simple mortal and Catholicism (like Bhudism) allows one to be an atheist sinner and still be regarded as just as pious as the next guy as long as you donate a little something tobeliev a monastery. I believe modern Universities took their idea of patronage from the old days of Cluny. Maybe that explains their choice in architecture.
  13. http://youtu.be/pAljja0vi2M at least this one gives a bit of room for discussion.
  14. I see there's a yearning (i guess since the 70s) to either give Cetaceans intelligence, or learn that they might be smarter than we earlier thought. I've read some ridiculous Libertarian fiction where this happens in a Libertarian future; we've all unfortunately had to watch Free Willy at some point in our lives, and I remember some adventure game by Sierra back in the 90s. All of it speculative and at the service of an emerging culture (new age?). Computers will get rights as undertood in this forum, before animals. On the other hand I see that historically humans give, not rights, but extensive entitlements to animals, not based on intelligence, but rather on honor, fidelity, piety, mammalian kinship, symbolism, and other human characteristics that are actually rather primitive in us (and therefore more connected to our own animal forefathers). Dogs in most of the World enjoy these entitlements, to a point also do horses. Central Asian Turks also loved and respected horse and dogs, but also extended this kinship to falcons, a non mammal. Siamese and South Asians in general respect elephants in a particular way as well. If a future colony of seasteaders develops some relation and indeed boundaries with manatees or dolphins, then their entitlements will flow from this 'domestication', not the other way around. Dogs are respected and cared about almost as much as humans without the need of animal rights. There's a deep rooted historical and pre historical reason for that which is simply absent in cetaceans no matter how clever they are. Parrots are also clever.
  15. That would not be profiteering, just profiting. There is no government policy that either forces telescope or precison manufacturers to produce less than they would be able to, or that creates an overall climate of scarcity. This is a deliberate decision by the company, and since their product even if precious is neither intellectual property or a service, so once they sell the good they relinquish all rights yoto it in exchange for 19,000 USD. I believe that's the end of the story, you can do with your newly acquired item as you want. Imagine if you needed to sell the scope beause of dire need and not because of financial ambition. As for the company's right to sell the way they sell, I have no problem with that and it's not unusual in luxury items. Many gourmet restaurants offer limited options and limited seats, and it would be inmoral to demand a little restaurant you like to go franchise so you can eat your favorite dish in any place.
  16. It is indeed delightful to learn from this interchange. Remember I've already changed my mind once. As I pointed Isabel Paterson contributed to that re examination of history. You have completely ignored my very extense disclaimer in which I conclude that it is specially difficult in this case to learn about the defeated from the accounts of the victors. It is my contention that Romans and Carthaginians belonged to what people used to call different races, and now we might call either cultures or civilizations, in a more markedly irreconcialiable way than Roman vs Greeks, vs Persians. More like Europe vs China. Parallel, hardly comparable. East of Levante, in the westernmost part of Asia, Semitic and Aryan cultures (as defined by language, lore and genetics) intermix and interchange, fight, and mix. But west of the Holy Fertily Crescent an ominous sea parts the pangea into two conspicuous options, North and South. Greek and Phoenician competition for the Mediterranean began an inevitable series of clashes between two different peoples and their ideas and logos (their alphabets, their gods). Genetics or language in itself is of no concern. The relevant issue is of identity. The conquered and assimilated barbarians of the West, when included, inserted in the civilized World, had to identify with either force. It would be ludicrous to believe that one is superior to the other, as it would be ludicrous to say that Pitar is a more appropriate word for one's male progenitor, than Aba. To illustrate the intensity and ambiguity of the conflict between these two peoples I point not just to the Punic Wars, but also to the creation of Christianity and the propagation of the Jewish G-d throughout Europe's slaves, and of the Jewish concept of treasuring of minorities (although the leap from Minority to minorities is as tremendous as the leap from the Old to the New Testament). Also, take a look at the quote you used for your signature. The conflict continues with Islam and its contest for Europe, and the debate of the Islamic Golden Age vs the Rennaissance, and even WWII and the triumph of Pluralism over Elitism, and the present situation in Europe Arabia, and North Africa. OIf course it's all very complicated and I'm not simpifying it by extending my disclaimer. In contrast I can provide one very simple historic evidence of Rome's superiority over Carthage. People defected their own tribes to become Romans, they wanted to be Romans. Nobody wanted to be Carthaginian, certainly their Numidian neighbors didn't, no Berber did. They might have a reputation of traders, but they enforced it with blood, not with law. The UNINTENDED consequences of the Roman legal Framework for Civilization, is what we mean by it being more Capitalistic. to be continued It is easier to discount the Chinese as a parallell I am a product of both. I don't claim to stand
  17. Small talk is one of the central themes in Kazuo Ishiguro's "the Remains of the Day". The British author concludes it is the "key to human warmth". I agree. It poses a difficult question to resolve though: is verbal language to be used to communicate ideas, command instructions, or to ignite that warmth? probably both. More primitive cultures use actions, or non-verbal communication, to demonstrate warmth. Like serving a cup of tea, or touching.
  18. Damn, I thougt it was going to be a parody of Libertarians or something more complex up to the last sentence, but instead sounds like an American Rapture fantasy where the anointed justiciar separates the good from the wicked, converts the remaining jews and pagans to the Right Way, and everyone lives merrily ever after in "The Kindgdom" is established. I believe Anders B. Breivik thought he was J-man. He should've sparked a J instead. If I was the character in the story, I'd go to the doctor to check out my superpowers before the "savage and blissful (sic) extermination" began. Better than my story though! thanks for sharing and allowing to be judged.
  19. And four years ago I would have agreed. Before debunking what I perceive as inaccuracies, let me give a long disclaimer that the conflict between Phoenicia and Greece, or of Carthage and Rome, gives a new dimension to the old saying "history is written by the winners". In this case the competing "teams" belonged to two very different groups. Unlike Athens vs Sparta, or even, even Greece vs Persia, the peoples involved in the Punic Wars belong to linguistically and genetically different groups that would naturally compete to the other's extermination or absolute absorption. Roman victory temporarily incorporated both cultures and peoples under one political entity but after its destruction the languages and peoples retained their different identities - to this day. Sparta and Athens were both Greeks. Greeks and Persians, as different as they thought they were, they were still both Indo-Aryan or Indo-European peoples who shared some referential point of origin in the Sanskrit language and the mounted warriors coming from the (North) East. Alexander's quest, and the resulting Hellenic Civilization only further proves the possibility of Persia and Greece belonging to the same human group. Linguistics proves it a lot more easily, take the word Father, Sanskrit Pitar, Greek Pateras, Latin Pater, (Grimm's Law P->V), German Vater, English Father. Phoenicians and Carthaginians (or Punic) share a different origin, one that did not originate in Northern India, but most likely in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. Camito-Semitic (Hammitic-Shemitic) or Afro-Asiatic languages such as old Aramaic, Phoenician, Hebrew, and modern Arab, Hebrew, Tuareg, Chadian, Hausa (once a sahel empire, now a prominent North Nigerian tribe), Tigray, Somali. Let's explore the word and the use of the word "Lord" or "Ba'al" Ba'al was the traditional Semitic name given to the Gods. Baal Hammon in Carthage for instance required the ritual sacrifice of children to quench its thirst of blood and bring about peace much like in William Golding's story "Lord of the Flies" (Baal Buzeh, Beelbuzeh). This was practiced in Carthage well after it was banned in Phoenicia. The Romans exacerbated the rumors and information about this practice for propaganda purposes. Who knows, maybe that's the origin of Gentiles' delusions of Jewish Blood Ritual. When Judaism began, when one people, one god, was declared for the Israelites, the word Baal became a reference to idols, or other tribe's (gentiles') gods, and therefore acquired a very negative, sinful connotation - while the "true" name of G'd was elevated into something humanly imperceptible. Other words were found for the use of Lord, such as Adonai. The Muslims obviously took after Jewish tradition and Baal of the(insert something) is always a daemon in Islam. During the Roman Empire, after the defeat and incorporation of Carthage, the Cult of Ba'al was popular among the military as he was the Lord of War. Secretive rites seem to have surrounded the Cult of Baal which still probably required human sacrifice outside the battlefield. Modern day Christian accusers of Freemansonry, as batshit as they may be, often correctly point out that Freemasons are required to accept the belief in an all-powerful and all-seeing one Lord. The Christian fundies might go too far by claiming that the Lord the Freemasons refer to is Baal, the Roman Lord of War. Basically my disclaimer is that Carthage and Rome, or Greece and Phoenicia, were two very different linguistic and probably even genetic groups, and so the level of competition was and is too high to pretend to learn about the defeated by the accounts of the winners. During my disclaimer I pointed out that the Carthaginians were very warlike and practiced ritual blood sacrifice not unlike the Aztecs. The Romans had their Vestal Virgins to sacrifice in turn, but it would seem that the numbers and proportions were dismally different in moral favor to the Romans. As for free traders, I was wrong when I assumed that 3-4 years ago. I know now that, by all surviving accounts, the Carthaginians raised a navy to exert a forceful monopoly over the waters they traded. Naturally and in any age a merchant fleet needs military escorts (take as an example America's first intervention war and the current situation in the straits of Hormuz). However while the Carthaginians protected the fleets that traveled the coasts,, the Romans conquered, developed and protected the coasts. It was precisely that "hyper-organization" which allowed them to triumph over Carthage, but sink by their own weigh centuries later. Far from Capitalistic the Carthaginians practiced Mercantilism. It was only in a big enough city like Rome and well-coded republic, then empire, that small unregulated entrepreneurial activities more akin to modern Capitalism were able to appear and in some cases flourish. That hyper-organization and expansion, but only accompanied by the wisest legal system of the time, was what allowed space for unintended activities such as Capitalism to flourish. Greece would not allow that space and individual freedom began and ended in the mind, as a mental hobby that needed the entire Demos' approval to realize -physically. Not in the Roman Republic. And militarily speaking it could not have turned either way . The Carthaginians, far from having an individualistic stance, punished defeated Generals with death, while Romans used more positive reinforcement (even when their homeland was being ransacked). That might be a reason why so many foreign and barbarian peoples allied with Rome rather than with Carthage. One offered several advantages, the other required tributes paid in children to sacrifice. So it's difficult to compare these two "Civilizations" in a good part because they were not related and so they both naturally wanted the extermination of the other, but if I rephrase the question into which "people" or even political entity achieved a higher level of Civilization - even as defined by Ayn Rand as the liberation of man from men - it is Rome. By the way, in the same way that Athens was superior in that respect to Jerusalem (or Tyre!)
  20. Have you investigated the old well-silenced conservatives arising in "Fabian" Britain and "Progressive" America, during the late 19th and early 20th century? They saw what was going on (the Democratization of institutions in the name of Equality and eventually, inexorably of God resulting in destruction) and wrote about it.
  21. Sorry for replying with an exasperated mannerism - I forgot where I was. Honestly I meant to draw attention to the very conflicting nature of children Rights. You ask what is a slave, then you describe a children as being in virtual bondage to the parents. The risk of abuse is normally offset by the fact that by force of nature parents will love their children. But what happens when a life is destroyed or abused for its own good? That's why I kind of mocked your certainty when you said mentally hurt the child? Don't most parents inevitably do just that and with the best of intentions? What happens to the arbitrariness of considering a 17 year old individual dependent to his or her parents, and an 18 year old a fully sovereign individual? Now back to work. Why shouldn't children be allowed to legally work? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to make their children work or help the household when 1) they already do as a matter of survival in half the World and 2) they allow their children to be institutionalized by state-directed public or private education in the other half of the World! Sorry if I came out sour, I actually thank all participants of this thread for considering such an important subject. By the way, does someone have any comments on the fact that maybe half of Ayn Rand's heroic characters worked while growing up?
  22. Ayn Rand described how her heroes grew up working. John Galt it is hinted, had to work to survive from a young age. Roark and Wynand, as they get to know each other, find common ground in how they both had to work themselves "up". Francisco's youth is illustrated with his experience as a 10 year old deck-hand or some other risky low-paid job aboard a ship. In this case Francisco consciously did it for adventure only as he had more than the necessary means not to work, and maybe unconsciously to practice real-world work. He repeats this experience founding his own Copper Company before inheriting his family's empire. So my guess from her novels is that Ayn Rand was very much in favor of allowing children to work. My guess from her non fiction works is that she obviously was. - Now what do you mean by "conscious enough to (...) consent" ? This is not sex which is conditioned by puberty and eventually old age. Before even considering the question of whether a child can be conscious enough to work (!), let's consider a more prickly subject, Are children currently consenting to being brainwashed and forced-socialized in an environment that in adult humans is only recreated in prisons, mental hospitals or other "institutions" (thus the horrible neologism of "institutionalized" for legally-deprived-of-rights) ? Do children consent to schooling? Now starting from age "zero to five" ! ?
  23. Moral virtue? Should that fail, you don't need to become an anarchist to see the merits of competing countries. Notice I didn't say this time competing-governments as that could lead to the misconception of many governments competing for one country or territory. I say and mean countries (nation states and their govs) competing for people (citizens, tourists, residents, gestarbeiters) Some of those benefits (and consequences) are beginning to be seen in the Northern States of Mexico where people can almost chose whether to live in either side of the border (and notice Americans do that as well, from middle class retirees looking for a spot in the sun to run-aways who prefer not to deal with a puritan judicial system, to companies, (ex. Plan Bracero) Of course much of that relationship (usa-mexico) is terribly government mandated. That's not the case of micronations, and small countries, which have to actually compete to attract people and markets to the alternatives in the same region (ex. Belize vs Costa Rica vs Panama) - or Gibraltar vs Malta vs Monaco - Hong Kong- Macau vs Singapore, or Switzerland vs the World. When judges and politicians lose their constituency due to emigration, they also lose their bribes. From there they can close the borders resulting in a poorer country and meager bribes. Or reform their system until enough people go back to justify their position and salary. With enough freedom of movement, and growth, regions can become like cities. And most people chose to pay taxes in a safe neighborhood than protection money to a gangster in a not so safe one. Eventually resulting in the "gentrification" of the latter hood.
×
×
  • Create New...