DEATH BY SCARF!


You're not really talking about scarves are you?

Sure, culture is important to people. But SCARF INVASION isn't going to happen in enough numbers to change the culture.

How would the people on this planet choose between countries if borders prevented them ?

Your suggestion of countries competing for people sounds very much like open borders. If borders are completely open then they effectively don't exist a far as people are concerned. So we agree?

No I think you are missing the point. It would be open border if you are considered valuable (think engineers or whatever else the new colonies on the planet need), and closed doors if you aren't.

Like you know, as if people weren't all the same.

Is it so impossible to believe that with open borders a couple of millions of radical Muslims could move to Austria and indeed change the culture?

Bah Bah stated countries competing for people. A new country on the "new" planet wouldn't survive long with only engineers. All new countries would need some of most types of people and the simplest way to get this done is open borders.

17% Muslims doesn't change the culture much.

ye sure everyone needs 74years old, or people diagnosed with severe illnesses

they totally do in the areas they settle, immigrants don't spread out equally everywhere. Btw it would be 30% (Austria is 9m people)

Oh wait you are from the areas where "couple" means 2, my bad.

I meant " a few millions"

jfc Luciom, people need their parents and grandparents who need their families Where's your ****ing humanity?

No you didn't, you're being disingenuous again. A couple of anything is two.

I thought it was 10M but if it's 9M in Austria then 2M out of 11M is still less than 20%.

And so what if some areas have a mosque? No one complains (or should complain) about synagogues or Hindu temples. You just want to live in a white only country because you're a white supremacist.

Grammar Nazis itt

I want to be sure it's impossible pork meat and alcohol will ever be banned for example. That it will never be imposed a veil on women hair.

Like guarantee that at 0% possibility.

Are you willing to bet your life that can't happen in 100 years in a small country with open borders that starts as non Muslim?

White supremacist lol, there are a lot of white Muslims .

I just don't want to give power over my life to anyone who doesn't share my core values anymore than strictly necessary.

I mean if I could I would love to take away the franchise of people who hate freedom who already can vote, imagine how interested I am to give voting rights to anyone who isn't much more libertarian than the median.

Btw Hindus do ban cow meat sometimes so if too many of them wanted to join my country I would be talking against them as well

Lol I am the adult son of an American citizen and I can't go to the USA nilly-willy nor does the left want to extend to me that privilege, take it to most countries in the world, don't treat me like my position about this wasn't absolutely normal across the planet .

It's you who , as a member of a small minority of very leftist people, want to allow all family members to come for free and get covered by local welfare, you are the weirdo not me on this topic

Btw if a Norvegian super White socialist wanted to come in my country and I had the power to decide, I would ban him from getting the vote for life as well, while a very Black crypto bro from Senegal would get it immediately, that's how white supremacist I am

This is a very stupid post. I lived close to a Bangladeshi area of London for a decade and guess what? I didn't have any trouble getting pork or alcohol LOL

So you want to restrict voting to people who agree with your politics. Totally reasonable position. Hello fascist.

No i only would if i could legally. I can't under this system so i don't. Having a preference isn't fascism.

But i can decide (we can, as a sovereign nation) who gets the vote among foreigners, how, why and so on. And it's not fascism to only extend the franchise to people who i think will benefit society, and for me in order to benefit society you have to share my core values among other things.

Yes because there aren't enough of them (yet?). And btw it isn't "muslims", it's radical muslims.

You might claim there will never be enough radical muslims to dismantle UK rights. That's possible. Especially if you get a lot of non muslim immigrants as well.

Are you sure that's the case for countries with much smaller populations though?

To be clear, does your ideal state deny citizenship and voting rights to these out groups or only voting rights?

This entire argument is a little disingenuous on both sides. You of course are correct to say that the U.S. isn't a crowded country by global standards. You of course are correct that the United States could structure its society to accommodate a larger population. If the United States targeted a 50% increase in population by 2045, I'm sure that would be achievable without much strain. You are probably correct that rigid restrictions on immigration could result in a depopulation trend in the relatively near term similar to what we have seen in Japan, Italy, etc.

It is not correct that to say that the U.S. can easily accommodate in the short term however many people can make their way to the United States, especially if the new entrants are highly concentrated in specific areas. It's a strain. It's fine to argue that it's a strain worth bearing for policy reasons, moral reasons, or both, but it isn't correct to say that there is little or no strain on resources in the very immediate term in certain areas.

That's ridiculous. There's no way that anyone would attempt to ban the sale of pork or alcohol here or in any country with a culture of eating pork and drinking.

What values and other things are you demanding that people not disagree with you about in exchange for being able to live and vote in the same country as you?

In my ideal state most leftist policy proposals are fully unconstitutional, and vote is linked to being a net tax payer. You don't vote if you are on welfare basically (that includes the portion of retirement which is welfare, disability, unemployment and everything else). And you don't vote if you are a public employee.

Basically you don't vote to assign to yourself other people stuff lol. You can get the vote at any time by stopping take other people money. Or lose the vote if you want other people money.

My ideal state is open border at no welfare, so domestically having citizenship or not shouldn't matter much. If you want welfare in the model, that's strictly for citizens only, and insurance based only, and you become one by paying a lot of net taxes basically (you pay for the club membership) . After that if you later on are in need you get the welfare.

But most leftist proposals about the role of the state would be constitutionally banned. From the ownership of all productive assets (except those needed to fulfill the very few strictly limited roles of the state, like it's ok for the state to own the building where the judges conduct trials), to redistributive welfare in general, to drug regulation and so on and on.

Taxes would be flat as a percentage of income with a cap (*in the constitution*), deficits strictly limited constitutionally, expenses all with sunset clauses no exception, and so on and on.

Not very nice of you to deny the vote to wealthy people who want to vote for right wing parties to pay less tax.

Net tax payers or at most neutral over the life cycle

The amount of taxes per person would be capped at far less than what wealthy people pay of property taxes alone. In my model you need single digit fiscal revenue as a % of gdp, a smallish sales tax alone would cover all the expenses for example.

Which taxation is optimal is a matter of great complication, but in general some LAND property tax (not linked to subsequent development) and some sales taxes, something like 1% of the LAND (not property) value and 5% sales taxes should cover all government expenses.

Hard to lobby for "less taxes" when the concept itself of income and corporate taxation is unconstitutional. No "life of others" audits, or needs to declare income in general exist in my model.

You can tax land, sales, and earn from "common assets" auctioned (like radio spectrum , fishery rights and so on). Something linked to vehicle use as well if roads are kept public (which they might very well be, at least some of them). And a percentage of contracts when enforced (you are paying for a service). So like you are owned 200k by someone, court finds you are right, you get 200k and the court gets money as well (oor it gets a portion of the 200k, details can be crafted when the model is actually applied).