Quote: (04-20-2015 11:40 AM)Phoenix Wrote:
The libertarian theories of 'immigration is good' are woefully oversimplified and naive - and I otherwise agree with 95% of their ideas. They simply brush off the entire concept of nations and states as superfluous. To them a government simply 'should' be a certain thing, and if you 'should' it hard enough, it will just magically become like that. They don't understand that its formation stems from the natural law of mankind, just like everything else. That video also doesn't recognize that immigration into a welfare state is not the same thing as immigration into a laissez faire state.
Very good point. And there are many other things that aren't called "welfare" but are still nonetheless a transfer of wealth from citizens such as having kids and those kids being able to enroll in school at a cost of $10,000 a year to tax payers. This isn't necessarily problematic if you're talking about only a tiny number, but when it becomes millions, you start to see entire school districts failing and perpetual budget shortfalls. If there were no public education, no public hospitals, no section 8, no TANF, then it would be truly sink or swim. Many would sink though. And we'd have a massive rise in poverty. We'd have the type of hillside slums you see in Brazil and Venezuela and the accompanying crime and mayhem problems. I think having some form of welfare state to prevent a situation like that is probably the lessor of two evils.
Quote:Quote:
On the attitude that Europe has had to immigration: it is simply so insane, that ever since I came to understand what they were doing (back when I was 18), I have yet to comprehend why any group of people on the planet would deliberately behave in such a self-destructive manner. I see Europe as a man stabbing himself with a knife, whilst wearing a big grin on his face. I can't imagine what that place is going to be like in 30 years or so. Probably a complete bloodbath.
It simply makes no sense. There is no stable mode of human existence that entails doing what the Europeans are doing. The nature of men will eventually correct it (perhaps not in the Europeans favour), but who caused it, why, and why did they succeed?
What's particularly odd here is that in the case of both America and Europe, the majority of the population does not actually want this. Any poll of citizens in any country on earth shows that most people want immigration limited(often extremely so) and most certainly don't want to be displaced by a foreign culture. So the conundrum is how can you have a majority sentiment like this in a democratic society, yet it not manifest itself in actual policy? Why are citizens of countries with freedom of speech, relative low corruption levels and free and open elections unable to do anything meaningful on the issue? I really don't understand where the bottleneck is. Only thing I can guess is that what benefits the wealthy becomes law and there's not a damn thing anyone else can do about it. If you don't like it, then tough shit they would say.