The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Dak]

If being against open borders but pro-free market is incoherent, so is being pro-open-borders and pro-welfare-state. Eliminate the welfare state and open borders would be much less of a concern.

lol at "ethnic cleansing" though. This is just TDS on display. LITERALLY HITLER.

 

[arg]

Einherjar believes in open borders, welfare for everyone whether legal or illegal, tax everyone whether 1%/rich/middle/working class, until nobody, not a single person on this planet is hungry, sick or homeless am I right?

No matter how much you have to steal, no matter if they acquired their wealth through hard work and fairness, no matter how much their quality of life will deteriorate compared to if they were not taxed out their ass, no matter if the poor/sick/hungry did nothing to deserve it but breathe and take shits, they must be taken care of! Fucking dumbass

 

[Einherjar86]

Einherjar believes in open borders, welfare for everyone whether legal or illegal, tax everyone whether 1%/rich/middle/working class, until nobody, not a single person on this planet is hungry, sick or homeless am I right?

No matter how much you have to steal, no matter if they acquired their wealth through hard work and fairness, no matter how much their quality of life will deteriorate compared to if they were not taxed out their ass, no matter if the poor/sick/hungry did nothing to deserve it but breathe and take shits, they must be taken care of! Fucking dumbass

Of course, this assumes that all poor/sick/hungry people breathe and take shits.

If being against open borders but pro-free market is incoherent, so is being pro-open-borders and pro-welfare-state.

Maybe it is, but I haven’t been arguing for open borders. I’ve been pointing out the idiosyncrasy of the former argument.

lol at "ethnic cleansing" though. This is just TDS on display. LITERALLY HITLER.

You’re right, advocacy for more rigid and restrictive immigration programs have nothing to do with race or skin color and everything to do with who broke the law. Which is, of course, totally black and white.

 

[Dak]

Maybe it is, but I haven’t been arguing for open borders. I’ve been pointing out the idiosyncrasy of the former argument.

Is it idiosyncratic to not be an ancap? I guess it would depend to some degree on some sort of deviation from some first principles against any state imposed structure or something. While this would be a potentially nice ideal, it's simply not, at this point, congruent with human behavior. That which is insufficiently "tribal" is assimilated by that which is sufficiently "tribal". Market exchange does go against many human tendencies. This isn't necessarily a knock, but it does illuminate the high incompatibility with refugees and immigrants from places which have little and troubled history with high trust market interactions.

I know you likely have some sort of immigration policy in mind, but your arguments looking suspiciously permissive to the point where the reasonably conjectured preferred policy may as well be open.

You’re right, advocacy for more rigid and restrictive immigration programs have nothing to do with race or skin color and everything to do with who broke the law. Which is, of course, totally black and white.

The fact that nations have, up until recent hyperprogressive ideation(less than 100 years), been racial or ethnic in nature (and still overwhelmingly are outside of a handful of western nations), means that any considerations of immigration necessarily have some intersections with race. You can push the grey areas of law in a lot of cases, but not on illegal immigration. Is a person within the national borders without citizenship or some other form of permission, and not via trafficking? Even in the latter case, the person has no right to be here.

As I said before, the US isn't hurt by highly skilled immigrants. But highly skilled persons aren't sneaking across the southern border. They aren't dodging ICE. They aren't hiding in enclaves of of their ethnic brethren. If they use any government programs, it is to further higher education and entrepreneurship. Of course, ironically progressives have occasionally taken the US to task for the "brain drain" from less prosperous countries. Well what about the labor drain too? Of course, there is the issue of remittances, which progressives spend equal time pretending don't exist when talking about immigrants helping the national/local economy, and praising them as helping the less fortunate when they do acknowledge them.

 

[CiG]

Ok it's incorrect word choice but the point should be clear. An economic framing would have slave labor in their employee pool. A political one wouldn't.

You can't have a free market if the government won't allow slavery to be a thing?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Christ, you guys really don’t get it.

Americans want free markets, but only for themselves. That’s not a free market.

“Gubment, stay out my business! Oh, but don’t let me hire illegals. K thanx bye.”

I can't speak for all Americans, but I only support free markets with nations and foreign nationals that also support free markets. If Mexico is going to send their poorest here to receive the benefits of living in a free nation, then Americans should be allowed to go to Mexico and enjoy the same benefits (which obviously do not exist in Mexico). If we had a pro-business Eurozone-like agreement with Latin America, I'd gladly support unregulated/barely-regulated immigration.

 

[CiG]

Fact-checking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s media blitz.

For instance, in an appearance on CNN on Monday, when challenged on the costs of government-financed health care, she answered: “Why aren’t we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of those who died because they can’t afford access to health care? That is part of the cost of our system.”

Huh?

WashPo made me lol.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think it's hilarious how the MSM is fact-checking the hell out of her when they gave HRC a pass for many of the same things said.

 

[CiG]

I wouldn't be surprised if the MSM is trying to shit on her and make her seem unpalatable to the left-wing voters. Pretty much what they tried to do to Bernie several times.

 

[arg]

i can't wait for her to actually implement a policy

like medicare for all in a city
- everyone will expect only the rich to be taxed
- the rich will run the fuck away
- there won't be enough money for medicare for all
- the tax will extend to everyone's ass and they will all be pissed off
- the quality of the medicare will suck

and watch it fail miserably

 

[arg]

or free college at all public colleges in a city
- a whole shitload more people will go to "college"
- there won't be enough teachers
- the teachers will suck
- everyone will expect only the rich to be taxed
- the rich will run the fuck away
- there won't be enough money for free college for all
- the tax will extend to everyone's ass and they will all be pissed off
- the quality of the education will suck
- a whole shitload more "graduates" with worthless degrees that didnt learn anything, still cant find jobs, have a shitload more competition with other stupid people, what fun, i can't wait

 

[rms]

You can't have a free market if the government won't allow slavery to be a thing?

yep

Fact-checking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s media blitz.


WashPo made me lol.

hate the fact she's really trying to act like one of the poor kids

 

[CiG]

yep

So libertarians don't support free markets? How can a market be free if the workers within the market are slaves and therefore not free? I don't really think that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Einherjar86]

Is it idiosyncratic to not be an ancap?

If you’re clamoring for free markets, yep.

I can't speak for all Americans, but I only support free markets with nations and foreign nationals that also support free markets. If Mexico is going to send their poorest here to receive the benefits of living in a free nation, then Americans should be allowed to go to Mexico and enjoy the same benefits (which obviously do not exist in Mexico). If we had a pro-business Eurozone-like agreement with Latin America, I'd gladly support unregulated/barely-regulated immigration.

Mexico isn’t “sending” anybody. They’re just not stopping people from leaving.

Saying a nation supports free markets is oxymoronic, because if it really, truly supported free markets then it wouldn’t care about its borders.

So libertarians don't support free markets? How can a market be free if the workers within the market are slaves and therefore not free? I don't really think that makes any sense whatsoever.

The freedom of markets has less to do with the freedom of people than the freedom of (ahem) markets.

For what it’s worth, I should point out that I don’t believe in free markets, but not necessarily because I don’t agree with them. I just think they’ve never existed, nor will they ever exist. They’re a right-wing libertarian’s pipe dream, created to rationalize the wealth of those who accumulate it.

 

[rms]

How can a market be free if the workers within the market are slaves and therefore not free?

yes you are too micro here like ein already said but you're conflating an economic doctrine with social/political morality. why would a market care how the value is associated to a laborer, for instance

 

[CiG]

If you say so. Workers make up a part of the market, so I don't think that makes any sense. A slave market isn't the same as a free market as far as I'm aware. Has an economist actually made the argument?

Closest I've seen is someone say you should be allowed to sell yourself into slavery.

 

[CiG]

How do you even keep people enslaved and working for you in a free market if the very nature of this free market means the slaves can simply revolt and overthrow their masters without having to worry about the state stepping in?

It just makes no sense to me.

 

[rms]

lol it worked for centuries man

cost of suppressive force < cost of paying for labor

 

[CiG]

In that case free markets are shit then. I never realized they extended to absolute freedom where might makes right. I always thought it was an economic concept with some standards.

I've never seen anybody until now actually argue that this is what a free market means.

 

[Dak]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions. Based on its political and legal rules, a country’s free market economy may range between very large or entirely black market.
............
No modern country operates with completely uninhibited free markets. That said, the least restrictive markets tend to coincide with countries that value private property, capitalism and individual rights.

People are generally clamoring for free-er markets when they clamor for free markets. Not absolutely free markets. That would indeed require the dissolution of national borders, among many other things.