|
A fellow poster! Welcome back. I was beginning to think I was talking to
myself (again :). >> I think the "well durrhhh..." solution is to deny welfare rights to non
>> citizens. Not a bad solution, but bear in mind that people who are illiterate even in
their own language don't have a high earning capacity in a technological
economy. So then they will merely weigh up the benefits of crime in Australia
versus the benefits of working at home. At the risk of sounding partronizing, this is one decision I would be happy
to make for them. >> But Libertarians have been saying this for eons. Yes. >> Why do you intrinsically say refugees are economic "bads"? Because their market value is negative. You have to pay countries to take
them off your hands - unlike Mercedes motor cars, DVDs or carnal rights to
18-year old Asian women that you normally have to pay something for. >> Don't tell me you don't like people smugglers because they are dangerous and
>> put refugees at risk - the same arguments are made for the monopolisation fo
>> the term financial planner, or regulation of taxi drivers. Actually I regard people smugglers pretty much the way I regard drug dealers and
lawyers - probably not nice people, but they are simply making a living filling
a niche which has been created by government stupidity. But if one of them got lynched by a mob of unhappy clients in a foreign
country I wouldn't exectly be upset. >> If the man on the street equates keeping out feral and unkempt Arabs and
>> Pakistanis with strong national defence, I won't suggest putting the wasted
>> money of bribing Nauru, excising Tampa, et cetera, into buying cruise missile
>> capability for our Navy and Air Force. Actually I think the greater risk is from giving voting rights to 20
million zealots obsessed with a repressive 1400 year-old ideology. .. but an arsenal of Tomahawks would be a nice thing to have too.
| 
