I don't really understand your position. On the one hand, you think governments shouldn't restrict immigration. On the other hand, you think people should be able to restrict immigration. How do you think these people restrict immigration if not through government? Pitchforks and torches?

And I'm bemused by your claim that people don't get to say no to immigration so soon after one of the most dramatic examples of people saying no to immigration in decades. The American presidential election, where immigration has been one of the most important issues, is another example of people getting to say no to immigration.

I still don't understand what you mean by the bolded. Most governments sets immigration policy and enforces borders, but that isn't really a "program." Many governments also fund programs to assist in assimilation or in the provision of social services to immigrants, but as I've said, I'm here only talking about government immigration policy, not tax policy. For instance, I would probably prefer a change to less social services but more immigration.

Neel has stated that his for "no borders at all" and OrP has stated that "we should let in or out whoever wants to come to the US as long as they can pass a security screening".

My commentary is relevant to both positions.

I don't follow. Your belief is that the latter is equivalent to giving up sovereignty? I don't think so.

Sure, I'm in favor of national borders. I'm also generally an incrementalist with regards to policy, so I probably favor gradual increases in immigration rather than full open borders tomorrow. I also think that politics is a part of governing and that at some times the political cost of increasing immigration can make it counterproductive to other, more important political and social institutions.

The main point I've been arguing for is that as a matter of public policy there are great advantages to increased immigration.

people can restrict immigration a number of different ways, without the need for government. refusal to sell property, refusal to do business/supply services, ostracism.

I dont think that government =people, or that government is required or necessary.

I am assuming youre referring to Brexit?

Don't beat around the bush: You want people to be free to discriminate distribution of goods and services based on "race", nationality, ethnicity, culture, gender, religion, sex or whatever arbitrary trait they can assume about individuals they encounter.

So what I want to know is: Do you think people should do so?

And yes, that question is important. It gives us a glimpse at the potential motivations behind your views.

I am pretty confident the bolded is false. Some people refusing to sell property or do business and ostracize immigrants is not sufficient. You would just create segregated communities, but because of the greater economic opportunity and safety of places like the EU and the US, you would still see a great deal of immigration. Plus, you'll never get everyone to do this in large modern countries.

Imagine the US removed all immigration restrictions and got rid of all anti-discrimination legisltaion. Would that stop immigration to the US? No. In fact, plenty of people and businesses are happy to serve immigrants and since there is so much global pent-up demand for the economic opportunities available in the US, this would undoubtedly greatly increase immigration. The problem here is that any real restriction on immigration requires either collective action or violence against immigrants.

But you think it can be done, that people can restrict immigration without government. Give me some historical examples of this being done. Or explain how you think this would actually work.

Yes.

Its not about getting people to do this. You are misunderstanding me.

I am not against immigration per se. I am for free movement and free association, without coercion or force. If refusal to do business, or ostracism, or refusal to sell didnt work, then the person would have a choice, live with it, or move. I dont know how well it would work, but why would someone want to move to a neighbourhood where they knew they werent welcome, and knew that it would be hard to live there happily?

If people were happy to live in mixed communities, and serve whoever, then great. I have no problem with that. But I dont think its for government to decide, or force anyone to accept, or not accept, who they live next to.

Im not beating around the bush. Im not sure that I want them to, but yes, neither I, nor anyone else, has any business forcing someone else to do something



Im not sure that "should" comes into it. Im not even sure what that means? It assumes that I know their motivations, or that I somehow know the situation they are in, or other information that is not included in this question. Expand on the question and I might be able to answer, but at the moment it seems a bit like a "gotcha" question.

Do I think people should be free to do so, if they so choose? yes. Do I think they actually should choose? I have no idea.

Do you think air traffic should be regulated? Or should anyone anywhere be free to fly what they want where they want and in whatever condition they see fit to fly it in regardless of experience / education?

In essence, yes( to your second sentence). And, I wouldnt get in a plane with anyone who wasnt trained/insured/regulated. And no, you dont need government to regulate.

Well, there is one thing I don't understand in what you are saying. You keep talking about governments forcing people to accept immigration. This seems a completely bizarre claim to me, akin to claiming that the government forces Christians to accept atheists because it doesn't ban atheism.

No one is advocating forced immigration here. Rather, open border advocates want the government to stop intervening in people's free decisions about where to live and work. When governments limit immigration they are putting limits on people's freedom to work or live where they want. When they remove those restrictions, they are removing limits on those people's freedom.

You keep bringing in other issues. I'm only talking about one specific question: How many people can legally move, either temporarily or permanently, to a country? I'm not talking about anti-discrimination laws, or welfare, or education, or anything else. Just that one question.

Now, I am presupposing a state here, so insofar as you are talking about some version of anarchy, this discussion isn't really relevant (as there would then be no borders over which to immigrate). But, since we all live in states today, and look to continue doing so for the foreseeable future, this assumption should underlie most of our analysis of public policy.

Alternatively, you can take this question purely as a hypothetical. If you have a state, is it better or worse for that state to restrict immigration?

I've pointed out benefits to not restricting immigration. Do you acknowledge that those are real benefits? Do you think there are costs to immigration such that it would be better for states to restrict it? I'm happy to discuss your views about anti-discrimination laws as well, but let's settle this issue first.

But you have explicitly stated that nobody should be allowed to force anyone to do anything. Nobody can force anyone to pay out insurance, nobody can force training standards and nobody can punish anyone for not following flight "regulations". Nobody can bind you to tell the truth on such matters and nobody can be punished for lying about them. It sounds like you on the issue of air traffic, just like immigration and discrimination, assume that people will just "work it out".

It should also bear note that I have actual experience on this issue. I worked with schools in an educational field bound by very few agreed upon standards and regulations, and one that educated for one of the riskiest work environments on the planet. I can tell any libertarian right now that their ideals of de-regulation (and up to no regulation) do kill innocent people and leave the guilty without a scratch and bundles of profit - while the parties with consciences struggle to keep their financial heads above water. I'm not unfriendly to the idea of small government, but outcries of "no regulation" as some automatic good is rather nauseating to me now, because I learned what it means.

yes, no one can force any of those things. It depends what you mean by punished. Contracts would still be binding, reputation would still be very important( much more important than now), competition would bring more choice and more accountability, and so on.

I dont assume people will work it out. I assume that, without force, people are free to do whatever they want to ( unless they are exerting force or coercion on others, of course), and that that is always better than coercion from a group of people with guns forcing you to do what they want.



Where was this libertarian utopia? I am very skeptical as to your claims

Following up, but still hesitant I'd like to look at the western nations, and as proxy the U.S.A. and its appendage Great Britain. It should be the other way around, I know, for the history of the rich economic theories/movements can be presented via Great Britain with an American follow up.

In this western entelechy there are three distinct realms which are containd in a dynamic movement which are the cultural, legal/rights, and economic spheres.

When one relates to the cultural sphere the question of "freedom" arises and especially "freedom in thought" and contained within this sphere is religion, science, art,education and in fact where "intelligence" is manifest. In this realm the individual man is involved with "truth' whether or not you and I can agree as to the specifics of the particular sub categories. Spiritual activity comes to the fore in this realm for only in this realm can "truth and intelligence" come forth.

In the cultural sphere there is the demand for clarity and only in our thinking and thought processes will clarity of comprehension be forthcoming.

The second realm is the "rights" sphere in which each individual man feels himself to be "equal under the law". so to speak. It of course may not seem to be so but the salient thought is that each man will state that within the law he is and should be equal to any other and this is stated in the best sense. Equality mandates in this sense as the "ideal" of our legal system for this is what we, in a real sense strive for in praxis.

The third sphere, the economic, is at base the production of foodstuffs directly related to the hunger instinct in the human soul. Each man does plan to put food on the table and this morphs into the industrial or electronic society to which we are presently involved. Of course this revolution marked the transformation of the agrarian society to the mechanistic . This was noted in the previous post and its no small wonder that Marx would be pissed when the pictures of that society vis a vis the workers is perused.

The salient point of the economic realm is one of "insecurity"; the catastrophic effects of drought, crop failure, and now mechanistic failure, war, or all the vicissitudes of nature and man are brought to bare at the kitchen table of the individual human soul. The clarity of the future is at best tenuous in this realm and of course we can work at an amelioration of these difficulties.

The three realms, cultural, rights and economic are of course intertwined and this 'intertwining' is created through the individual man. Always consider that we are speaking of the individual man as the basis of these realms, not in theory but in actuality. These realms exist today and each has their own cogent creations which I'll come back to in the next episode. LOL

Thought of this thread while driving home. I was flipping through the stations and passed the local evangelical talk station. The segment was whether evangelicals should vote, and for whom. The guest informed the audience that Trump was like Sampson... He "had some flaws," but God was using him to work out His purposes. Evangelicals of course can't vote for Hillary because she represents a more open theology, so God couldn't use her (as opposed to Trump, who says he has never asked God for forgiveness for anything?).

I'll make two points. First, having grown up working on a farm, I'm not romantic about that kind of work at all. It is hard, boring, and long. Some people like it. Other people don't. But by and large, if you want to work in agriculture today, you still can. The real change is that the modern economy has greatly expanded the career opportunities open to people. In 1790, 90% of Americans were farmers, now it is less than 5%.

Second, globally, we are less at the mercy of drought, crop failure, earthquakes and famine than ever before. To live in a country with a modern economy is to no longer worry about crop failure or famine or even drought as something that will kill you and your loved ones. So if those are the salient points of the economic realm, so much the better for modern economies.

I'm not advocating an agrarian economic outlook; I thought i spoke to the change with the industrial revolution . I'm not done as of yet for there are depressions, recessions and loss of work to many and I hope to speak to this.

It suffices to say that even within our present economics there are periods of distress and when I spoke of famine i was being metaphorical and hoped one could see that even in our times the distress becomes evident; of whatever nature it is.

I'm not done as of yet. I'm not out to kill the goose but hopefully to bring some clarity to the situation.

This, from the WaPo, seems relevant to this thread. It details research on how often churchgoers hear their preachers talk about the election and says that white evangelicals are half as likely as black Protestants or Muslims to hear about it from their ministers. Since the article doesn't provide a baseline from prior elections, I don't know if this has anything to do with evangelical support for Trump.

I'm like to offer that in the economic system the prime mover is capital which translated is intelligence. An economic system which operates within reason understands that there will be some who earn more than others and this is evident and any attempt to take away form one to give to another or any type of seizure of monies or any aggrandized goods will be destructive.

Try as one may, equality is not the prime mover as in the legal/rights realm and in this(capital/intelligence) the economies move into the future.

There is more to this for within a system in which there is an unbridled accumulation of monies is also destructive and in this I tried looking into the modern economies and see a cooperative activity even in the worst circumstances. The fact is that one cannot operate a modern economic system without cooperation..

Cooperation is evident as rarely is a good wholly manufactured in one plant as parts and pieces of the manufactured goods come from all over the world , let alone the environs of the States. Cooperation is built into the system save for a salient area and that is the working man.

When one speaks of cooperation but I'll say the word now "fraternity" this means that all men are within a fraternal effort from the assembly line worker to the presidents of large companies.In the states we have men who have risen from abject poverty to be corporate heads and in this the economic system must be open ended and fraternity mandates that all men have opportunity with a closed system of economic leadership the whole will, in the long run, fall apart.

The individual man works within the economic system and therefore knows that he offers something of worth no matter what the job as the system works within "fraternity". "Fraternity" is not just among heads of businesses but between individual men no matter his position within society.

I know the above is haphazard , sketchy and even looks like "pie in the sky" but it is an activity within our present system and is more "real" than the "beat the other fellow" belief of some who wish to make their status only an economic matter. I'm not inclined to pass judgment or condemnation for the individual man should be able to accumulate monies and in this he will be able to do within a fraternal economy, hopefully recognized and brought into one's comprehension.

There is of course much more as in the competitive environment "competition" is an "instinctive" activity whereas in "fraternity" we have men "consciously" acting within a economic realm which is insecure and just as the ancient peoples stored grain within a silo for days of want the fraternal activities of men will do likewise within an economic system of capital . This cannot be accomplished so long as we are in competition with each other without a fraternal constraint. Competition will not be obviated but gloriously assuaged within a fraternal economies.

If you read my previous posts i made mention of the cultural sphere of 'freedom' which is in fact "Liberty" of thought. In the legal rights sphere we have "equality' and in the economic sphere we have "fraternity".

You've heard this; "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity"; each in its own sphere of activity. No one will be equal in monies by any type of legislative fiat nor will unbridled "freedom" be anything but destructive in the economic sphere and the middle sphere, the "equality" sphere stands the amelioration of excess of all the spheres.

Shortened, the economic sphere should be separate from the legal and cultural and vice versa. A big move but doable as the purchasing of the cultural such as science , medicine and religion is anathema as is the purchasing of the legal.

In the economic sphere the vicissitudes of ALL men, creators and workers alike, are worked out within this sphere in and of itself.

I wrote this with one purpose being my attempt to comprehend the following and I can see its complications having been within the American entelechy of a capitalism which I favor. I am obviously troubled as to clarity and so I'll offer the horse and leave the details to those who wish to discuss.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA023/..._tpreface.html

dropping this here as I see it, might be a point to discuss in the future: "Trump’s margin among evangelical white Christians is 81-16 percent, according to exit poll results."

Link?

I'd be surprised if this is a national result. Not shocked. Just surprised.

538 liveblog, don't think i can link a specific item: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog...d=extra_banner

"Evangelical voters are potentially among the strongest demographic groups for Trump, and they help explain why he is doing unexpectedly well tonight. Trump’s margin among evangelical white Christians is 81-16 percent, according to exit poll results. That appears to be the widest margin for a Republican presidential candidate among evangelicals since 2004.

In Georgia, for example, preliminary exit polls show that Trump won 88 percent of white evangelical voters, compared with 6 percent for Clinton. The demographic makes up a third of the state’s voters. They are anticipated to be 20 percent of Florida’s voters.

During the primaries, many evangelical voters had questions about Trump’s values, but the demographic group consolidated around his candidacy because of issues like abortion and appointments to the Supreme Court."

They got their Caligula.

or not.