|
>> Yes, I was operating in an ideal world. Importing labour or entrpeneurs should,
>> (there's that word again) be beneficial, but if they come to a country that
>> gives away enough money to survive, and has a tax/welfare system that does what
>> leftists say a free market does - keeps the poor down, they will indeed keep on
>> voting for a more "humaintarian society". >> I dare say there would be economic benefit if they were coming to a fre-er market. >> >> "Libertarians reason: 'libertarianism results in free movement across borders'
>> >> therefore: 'freer movement across borders results in more
>> >> libertarianism'. Rubbish! This is about about on par with saying 'all you need
>> >> for communism to work is for people to abandon self interest'. Such insight!" >> I suppose it does mean that, but if a brown dog barks, and all dogs are bark,
>> it doesn't mean all dogs are brown. Libertarianism would encourage freer
>> movement across borders for legitimate (non terrorist) reasons. Freer borders
>> if done properly is close to a libertarian principle in action. But that's what
>> I'm saying. Remove the welfare state first. All you have to do is convince
>> people who are already here or citizens that they have a benefit from this. Right. When there is no welfare, and when all natural
resources are privatized (preferably corporatized and equal shares issued to
all Australians), then I will listen to advocates of freer border
policies. Until then, I will dismiss them as simply having a hidden agenda
(like 'smashing the capitalist system' or whatever idiocy they believe in). A classic example: 'conservationists'
currently talking about the imposition of permanent water
restrictions, and still wanting to increase the population. Morons. Watermelons. >> Another point is, limit the power of Government. I'd have to ponder on this, but isn't this an oxymoron? Government is the
organization that monopolizes coercion in a
geographical region. Government can limit its actions or limit its
spending, but not its power. A government's power is only limited by
the will of others to remove it. Either through revolution, or through
majority vote in a democracy. >> Actually, I would pick all of the above, you would end up with a nasty mix of
>> all three. Some peoplke would be more free, and other people would subsidise
>> them and somehow the economy still manages growth (like now). But the
>> subsidisation and welfare loss would get bigger. >> Yes, by offering liberty, it doesn't mean they will take whenthey instead can
>> have power over others, because their liberties are not being infringed (e.g
>> gun laws, censorship of porno films). >> I think the market should be freed and Government restrained. Not only would it
>> be more sensible to free up immigration then, but it would be more palatable. >> Would you then ban David Irving form coming to Australia, given he could
>> influence people into voting in a manner which is anti freedom? Is this a weird
>> kind of authoritarianism, or is it totally or partially justified? I don't care whether David Irving comes to Australia or not. I do care about
whether he gets included in the power block (ie gets Australian citizenship). Hence I think the issue is not materially different from the issue of
'where do you draw the line of free speech'? If someone is not preaching
breaking the law, or yelling
'fire' in a crowded theatre, then I can't see the problem. Particularly as the
Internet makes free speech
laws pretty well impotent anyway.
| 
