The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Americans Renouncing Citizenship Jumps Sixfold As Tax Law Looms (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 08:49, landmark wrote:
I don't agree with gdw, but I find him not vague at all and the quality of his argument at least the equal of most here.


I generally agree, but I found him rather nonresponsive (in a legal sense, not a medical one) when I tried to get him to define/describe what he meant by the "War on Immigration."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.

Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.

I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Pakar Ilusi
View Profile
Inner circle
5715 Posts

Profile of Pakar Ilusi
Still, I would prefer to live there. Smile
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.

Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.

I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time;

I guess I don't see your point. Under a system in which the government owns some border property and there is a central immigration framework, immigration can also be tightly controlled. This has been demonstrated elsewhere, even if not in the U.S. So perhaps the difference has as much to do with the implementation of the system, than with system itself.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.

Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.

I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.


Reductio ad absurdum, but yes.

The notion of someone, or group, essentially creating a blockade with their own property has been thoroughly debunked by others.

Also, even if such a situation DID arrive (aside from the fact that people will always find a way around it, as we can gather from the numbers who get around the state's barriers to entry) then it wouldn't produce the egregious results that immigration policy does today.

You wouldn't have thousands dying trying to get into america, with the numbers of those dying continuing to increase, in spite of illegal immigration numbers decreasing.
You wouldn't have people spending years, even decades, and thousands of dollars, trying to go through the "proper" channels.
You also wouldn't have "official policies" fuelling the "us and them" collectivist mentality, and racism, and persecution of people based on their skin colour or accent, even "legal" immigrants.

The war on immigration is almost identical to the war on drugs in so many ways. I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.


We can certainly judge the suggested a bit better by looking at earlier immigration policies which were far close to what, for example, I advocate.

Doing it "legally" today means something not even remotely resembling what american immigration "policies" began as.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:15, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.

Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.

I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.


Reductio ad absurdum, but yes.

The notion of someone, or group, essentially creating a blockade with their own property has been thoroughly debunked by others.

Also, even if such a situation DID arrive (aside from the fact that people will always find a way around it, as we can gather from the numbers who get around the state's barriers to entry) then it wouldn't produce the egregious results that immigration policy does today.

You wouldn't have thousands dying trying to get into america, with the numbers of those dying continuing to increase, in spite of illegal immigration numbers decreasing.
You wouldn't have people spending years, even decades, and thousands of dollars, trying to go through the "proper" channels.
You also wouldn't have "official policies" fuelling the "us and them" collectivist mentality, and racism, and persecution of people based on their skin colour or accent, even "legal" immigrants.

The war on immigration is almost identical to the war on drugs in so many ways. I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you.


I found it very much clarified by your statement that the only "real" borders are those of property owners. Sorry it took me so long.

Moving on, though, I find much of your "you wouldn't have..." statements to be pure assertions of faith, many of which I'm inclined to disagree with. For instance, why wouldn't you have thousands of people dying to get here, if there were a blockade? They'd have all the same motivations to do all the things they do now that result in those deaths, if they couldn't get here legally. And why wouldn't you have racism? You'd still have people of other races coming from places that would make it a bargain to work at prices that dramatically undercut the current wages at which Americans can expect to get hired. The "us and them" policies do just as well or better without the government involved. You actually left out the one benefit that's unassailable - you wouldn't have Americans' tax money going to pay for the immigration system.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:17, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.


We can certainly judge the suggested a bit better by looking at earlier immigration policies which were far close to what, for example, I advocate.

Doing it "legally" today means something not even remotely resembling what american immigration "policies" began as.


Around what time frame would you say would be appropriate for analytical purposes?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:15, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 12:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 23:50, balducci wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-14 21:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The (an?) irony is that private ownership and regulation of border property could prevent ALL immigration.

Could, but it seems unlikely. It would cost big, big dollars to police all border property sufficiently to prevent all immigration, and I doubt private landowners (especially individual private landowners) could manage that task.

I meant in a theoretical sense, not a practical one. Under the "coercive" system in place, where the government owns some property and we have a central immigration framework, we get immigrants all the time; throw out the government and make all property privately owned, and you'd have a "free" system in which there would be no laws against hiring what are now illegal immigrants, but in principle, it's possible that NOBODY would be allowed to actually travel to your place of business, because every private intervening landowner would have grant permission to pass on his/her property.


Reductio ad absurdum, but yes.

The notion of someone, or group, essentially creating a blockade with their own property has been thoroughly debunked by others.

Also, even if such a situation DID arrive (aside from the fact that people will always find a way around it, as we can gather from the numbers who get around the state's barriers to entry) then it wouldn't produce the egregious results that immigration policy does today.

You wouldn't have thousands dying trying to get into america, with the numbers of those dying continuing to increase, in spite of illegal immigration numbers decreasing.
You wouldn't have people spending years, even decades, and thousands of dollars, trying to go through the "proper" channels.
You also wouldn't have "official policies" fuelling the "us and them" collectivist mentality, and racism, and persecution of people based on their skin colour or accent, even "legal" immigrants.

The war on immigration is almost identical to the war on drugs in so many ways. I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you.


I found it very much clarified by your statement that the only "real" borders are those of property owners. Sorry it took me so long.

Thanks

Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:25, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Moving on, though, I find much of your "you wouldn't have..." statements to be pure assertions of faith, many of which I'm inclined to disagree with. For instance, why wouldn't you have thousands of people dying to get here, if there were a blockade? They'd have all the same motivations to do all the things they do now that result in those deaths, if they couldn't get here legally. And why wouldn't you have racism? You'd still have people of other races coming from places that would make it a bargain to work at prices that dramatically undercut the current wages at which Americans can expect to get hired. The "us and them" policies do just as well or better without the government involved. You actually left out the one benefit that's unassailable - you wouldn't have Americans' tax money going to pay for the immigration system.


If there was a blockade at the border, they wouldn't have a say at the airport. As long as there's a property owner willing to receive them, without centralized policy permeating every form of transportation to said property, then there would be no need for people to cram themselves into storage bins, paying thousands of dollars to smugglers who have no problem killing them along the way.
Regarding racism, I didn't say you wouldn't have racism, just that you wouldn't have policy fuelling it.
Obviously bigots will remain bigots, but you wouldn't have policy, and/or ignorant lack of comprehension of policy, furthering people's actions against people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17......668.html

Regarding wages and such, first off, why shouldn't they be able to hire whomever they wish? It's their business if they want to hire only family, or people of similar ethnicity, same as it's a person's own business which customers they wish to have/serve.
I'd imagine you're quite aware of how strong an effect market pressures have on weeding out businesses who don't serve people based on race, and similar.
Do you really think that Montgomery buses would have flourished with SELF imposed bus segregation against 75% of their customer base?
Blanket policies like this implemented across a market eliminates the chance for competition to weed out bad policies.
If everyone has to segregate their customers by race, then there's no chance for a competitor to realize 'Hey, we're treating our largest customer base like crap. If we didn't do this, we'd have a huge advantage over the competition.'

Obviously minimum wage laws are the other huge factor in the matter of under cutting wages. Again, something I imagine you ware well aware of.

Speaking of not having to pay for the immigration system, good point. Makes me wonder how much money goes towards that, both funding the legal immigration network/system, as well as as combating "illegal" immigration, compared to how much money is lost to "illegals" using government "services."

Speaking of the latter, the problem there is not "illegal" immigration, but rather the welfare state. Instead of focusing on those gaming the system, focus should be on how broken the system is in the first place.

Eliminating the welfare state, and other similar programs, which would not exist in their current form in the hypothetical situation we are discussing, would also mean a huge over all benefit. No one being forced to pay for and support programs with which they disagree, and no wasted money through those systems on "illegals."
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:27, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:17, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 14:09, LobowolfXXX wrote:
We can judge the current system by the way it's practiced, but we can only judge the alternative by speculation and hypothesis. The implicit suggestion is that doing away with the governmental regulation of borders would result in a more free society, vis a vis borders. I'm simply pointing out that this certainly need not be true.


We can certainly judge the suggested a bit better by looking at earlier immigration policies which were far close to what, for example, I advocate.

Doing it "legally" today means something not even remotely resembling what american immigration "policies" began as.


Around what time frame would you say would be appropriate for analytical purposes?


Considering the country was basically built upon immigrants, and not that I advocate any notion of "the good old days," or going "back to the way things were," but one can certainly argue that when doing it "legally" meant waiting around on Ellis Island, then having someone mess up your last name, was working just fine (obviously I still advocate for going even further than that.) To compare that to what it means to immigrate "legally" today, it's pure insanity, not just in terms of what someone has to go through, but also the casualties caused as a result.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20540 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
I just don't see how you implement your system Glenn. At what point in history is the PERFECT amount of immigrants and when we pass that how do you decide to try to stop it for benefit of land owners?

Where do people get the funds to defend what is theirs in your Utopia?

People living together in a society have moved past this idea Glenn precisely because we understand that it is our responsibility to help the less fortunate. How do we do that in your Utopia? Who cares for the under privileged? Who cares for those who maybe can't care for themselves?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 15:12, Dannydoyle wrote:
I just don't see how you implement your system Glenn. At what point in history is the PERFECT amount of immigrants and when we pass that how do you decide to try to stop it for benefit of land owners?


First off, it's not something "implemented." That's the whole point. Moving beyond the collectivism mentality, beyond centralization.
It's the absence of an implemented system.

Quote:
On 2013-08-15 15:12, Dannydoyle wrote:
Where do people get the funds to defend what is theirs in your Utopia?


Where would people get the funds to feed themselves?

Quote:
On 2013-08-15 15:12, Dannydoyle wrote:
People living together in a society have moved past this idea Glenn precisely because we understand that it is our responsibility to help the less fortunate. How do we do that in your Utopia? Who cares for the under privileged? Who cares for those who maybe can't care for themselves?


It's hard to beat the inefficiency of the state in terms of helping the less fortunate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/opinio......tml?_r=0
Here's the study referenced regarding the near $1 trillion of American's money spent on failing help those who need it:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf

That's mainly just addressing the programs and funding meant to "help."
Don't forget the many regulations and barriers which make it incredibly difficult for people to get out of poverty themselves. The barriers for starting your own business, competing with those already established, the same people who control the licensing boards, and often write the very regulations governing their industries.

Removing those means more people are able to help themselves.
Allowing people to keep their own money, and choose how they wish to support/help those who need it, and allowing private charity and industry to handle helping people means FAR more efficient and effective use of funds.

From the NY Times article linked above:
"Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year federal poverty line for that family. It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class."

People are clearly willing to contribute to helping those in poverty. Unfortunately they're forced to do a large part of that through the government.
$1 trillion. How much better could that money be being put towards ACTUALLY helping those in need?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20540 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Oh no Glenn it must be implemented or it is just running off at the mouth.

How do people feed themselves is a good question? With no borders and no ownership everyone just gets along?

Sorry you really are losing steam. You think that no help for those who need it most is even logical?

Sorry Glenn we have a society.

If it is so easy why do you not live up on a mountain top with your family and just remove yourself from society? It can be done. Just set an example and do it. I don't see what is to stop you.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Andrew Zuber
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
2661 Posts

Profile of Andrew Zuber
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 15:49, gdw wrote:

"Divide $1 trillion by 46 million and you get around $21,700 for each American in poverty, or nearly $87,000 for a family of four. That’s almost four times the $23,050 per year federal poverty line for that family. It’s intriguing to think about converting all of this to a cash payment that would instantly lift everyone in poverty up to the middle class."

While this may be fine in the short term, the long term prospects wouldn't look as promising. The more people we let in, the more lower class families we're going to have. Before you know it, that $1 trillion isn't going to go as far as it does in this example.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20540 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
The problem is there will ALWAYS be people who make less than others. If you simply write checks, you only raise the poverty line, you don't help those who live below it.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 17:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
The problem is there will ALWAYS be people who make less than others. If you simply write checks, you only raise the poverty line, you don't help those who live below it.


Yes. Especially with countless regulations holding them back.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20540 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
See now you are getting into blah blah territory. That is a talking point you are spouting and a theoretical concept. It is not really those below the poverty line held back so much by regulation.

That is another discussion though. You have ignored the other points just as I said you do and you claimed you didn't.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20540 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
The problem is Glenn that you are comparing hard reality with a fantasy. Fantasy will always win. Reality is real though, not theoretical. That is the problem you have.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2013-08-15 16:22, Dannydoyle wrote:
Oh no Glenn it must be implemented or it is just running off at the mouth.

How do people feed themselves is a good question? With no borders and no ownership everyone just gets along?

Sorry you really are losing steam. You think that no help for those who need it most is even logical?

Sorry Glenn we have a society.

If it is so easy why do you not live up on a mountain top with your family and just remove yourself from society? It can be done. Just set an example and do it. I don't see what is to stop you.


Where do you keep getting this idea of no ownership?
I have no problem with having a society.
Living as a hermit does nothing to set an example of a voluntary society.

Again, it's not something to be implemented.
It is something that can be arrived at, and there are roads to that, but that's different than "implementing" it.
You're asking for the equivalent of how you "implement" not having cancer.
Or more related, how do you implement not having national healthcare.
You don't.
You can work towards getting rid of, or preventing, the aforementioned, but you don't "implement" their absence.

It is achieved by NOT implementing force as policy.
As for doing something to achievie it, you do realize that talking in here is not the only thing I do with my time, right?
And there ARE people leading by example. One of the foremost currently would be the Free State Project.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Americans Renouncing Citizenship Jumps Sixfold As Tax Law Looms (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.25 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL