Ah, but refugees are just here to steal our jobs and bludge off welfare.
Really?
Have you ever thought that refugees make those dangerous trips across thousands of miles of water for reasons, desperate reasons, but not those reasons.
Here’s the story of Tran Lawrence, who arrived from Vietnam from boat more than thirty years ago.
Read it for some insight into the trips refugees make, and why.
.
30 comments:
This is a lazy shot in my view. You could have just as easily cut and pasted a story about, say, a bloke that has two wives and whacked one about with a hammer because she was feeling ignored and mentioned it. The issue is one of quality, not quantity. People we do not want can walk and sail all they like but that is not what makes them acceptable.
3:16
Yes, I agree, your comment is a very lazy shot. I've seen enough of those stories you mention, as if those stories (if it bleeds it leads) are what define these good people.
In any case, the issue actually is : just who the fuck is this "we" you're talking about; and what gives you the right to make decisions about somebody else's future.
The right exists at some level because the "we" have formed a civilisation that embraces western culture and politicians hopefully sign up to protect what is demonstrably good about it. You have said before, I recall, that such culture belongs to those who embrace it and that is the measure of whom is broadly acceptable here. Much of the world is happy to embrace it because its demonstrably better than other cultural and political options and your cut and paste is about such a one. Not all are like that and its reasonable, in my view, to look at individuals and make a call. People make judgements about all what is desirable or acceptable at a personal level all the time and immigration, while on a larger scale, is no different. Europe's open borders are changing Europe and the question to be asked is whether its better for it.
3:16
"Not all are like that"
Not only that, but many are actively hostile to Western Civilisation, and are using open-immigration (not immigration) as a weapon against it.
If politicians sign up to anything legitimately it is to protecting individual rights. Which include those of free association and movement. These rights being among those fruits of western civilisation you'd like piss on, not protect.
Many? "Many"!? What fucking fevered dreams are you living through. You really do need to put down all your Spencers and Gellers and Galt knows what else, and just go outside and breathe some fresher air.
Maybe go for a nice curry while you're out there, made by one of the many million who's probably more an advocate of actual western values than you've become.
And which Western values am I against, Peter? Specifically? You cannot name a single one. The only disagreement that we have, that I'm aware of, is over immigration. Open-immigration, versus limited immigration. How does limited immigration run contrary to Western values? And your insinuation that I would keep people out because they eat curry is just insulting. My one and only concern is the current war that Islam has against us. It is a supremacist, imperialistic religion that is openly hostile to liberty. There are vast numbers of people in Europe now that ought to be kicked out if freedom is to be defended, but you have a policy of making sure those numbers rise dramatically. There really is no distinction between you and the hard left when it comes to immigration.
Limiting immigration does not piss on those rights.
"If politicians sign up to anything legitimately it is to protecting individual rights. "
That value hasn't been achieved yet. You put the cart before the horse. You call for open immigration, which will mean massive Islamic immigration, which will ensure that individual rights never gets to the drivers seat. If individual rights are already the driver, there would be no issue.
Richard, you say: "Limiting immigration does not piss on those rights." That indicates your total ignorance of what a right is. A right involves a freedom to act without permission. So you tell me how rights to freedom of association and movement are protected, respected and acknowledged when you're pointing a gun at would-be migrants.
"The cart before the horse"? You're an idiot, Richard. Protection of rights is the *only* legitimate role of government, an understanding of which was one of the great achievements of western civilisation and the Enlightenment. And you want to piss on that in the name of western civilisation, and build walls instead, and then wonder (probably) why I call you an idiot.
And, by the way, tell me how many Muslims are clamouring to 'invade' NZ: what number are you claiming is "massive"?
You fully deserve the insult.
See above.
REMINDER to commenters about comment moderation and spam:
* Spam will not be published. If you have a link you want to post, consider summarising it instead. (The moderator can't be arsed checking all your links just make sure they're not batshit crazy.)
* Repeating your past talking points as if they haven't already been asked and answered is not a comment, it's more spam.
* Comment on the post and what it says, not the post you would like it to have been and said. If you don't, to a moderator that looks like spam too.
"A right involves a freedom to act without permission."
Rights are moral principles that delineate mens actions towards other men. They have boundaries. The "your rights end where my nose begins" boundary. The freedom to act is only within those boundaries. A country, being a concrete value, and not an abstract principle, belongs to the people who build and pay for it. It has borders, which are its boundaries. You are essentially saying that because all men have rights that countries should have no borders. To put up a border is to say that men need permission, which you're claiming is contrary to rights. If that is the case, then you are really just doing away with a country. There is no point in having an immigration department, immigration policy, or anything remotely to do with immigration. To do so is contrary to men not needing permission. As I keep repeating, that puts you hand in hand with the agenda of hard core leftists who aim to drag nations down.
Richard - The principle applying to immigration should be the same principle applying to all other areas of government involvement: everything is generally allowed, unless there are specific reasons for prohibiting it. I think that you (at least in regards to immigration) start with the opposite premise, that movement should generally be restricted (or stopped), unless there are special circumstances for allowing it. If you call yourself a libertarian, then I can only assume you don't apply that principle consistently, just to immigration.
Yes, the cart before the horse. A libertarian government is a value to be achieved, just like a roof over your head or a dinner on your table. It must be constructed through a process, a major part of which is convincing people of the value of liberty. That isn't an easy task, as you know, yet you want to open the floodgates to people who are ideologically opposed to liberty. Just how that will make putting a libertarian government in the drivers seat easier to achieve, eludes me.
As for how many muslims are clamouring to enter NZ, I have no idea, and it does not matter. Instituting an open-door policy will ensure that the incentive to come flooding rises.
Many errors there, including the oxymoron of "collective ownership," but amongst the most egregious is the equating of open immigration with there being no borders (about which we have definitely talked before, so you've either forgotten or chosen to ignore that).
In any case, you really do need to check your premises.
I don't start with that premise. I'm all for freedom of movement, in a context where freedom of movement can exist in. Rights are not a given. They are dependent upon a culture that politically enshrines them. That's the value to be achieved, is it not? You are treating them as if they exist and in nature without context. You don't seem to think that they are dependent on the culture, and that a rights respecting culture can be overwhelmed with barbarism without detriment. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's why Trump's win is a good thing despite his detrimental economic ignorance.
Logically, if there is no need for permission (which is what you said) then there is no need for a border. It becomes meaningless. Unless you decide to water that down somewhat and only allow people across according to some standard you've set. But if that's the case, then it goes against no one needing permission.
"I think that you (at least in regards to immigration) start with the opposite premise, that movement should generally be restricted (or stopped), unless there are special circumstances for allowing it."
In reverse actually. Unless there are special reasons for restricting. In the current climate, there are very good reasons for restricting it. What I get from you and Peter, is that it is set in stone so that, in the context of say, WWII, it would be wrong of the government to restrict immigration from Germany because it would violate individual rights.
My comment & link to a short youtube clip showing Muslim migrants in Sweden attacking a 60 minutes crew did not meet any definition of "spam"
*You have not answered the issue of migrants causing problems in civilised countries, in direct proportion to numbers of said migrants.
*This issue is absolutely germane to the post.
*If you have to resort to weak rationalisations for censorship on your "libertarian" blog in response to inconvenient truths being raised, then maybe you're the one who needs to check your premises.
All good points, Ben.
Let's try an analogy. Does having a government that enforces contracts mean you must seek permission from the government to enter into a contract?
No, but it isn't a valid analogy. You don't need permission to enter into a contract with anyone, and the government doesn't enter the picture until either one or both parties invite it. But the parties don't need permission of any kind to cross the contract line. It is very different with the borderline. The government screens people to see if they have the right to cross it. They do this (or they should do this) on behalf of those who've instituted them in order to defend the integrity (integrity being the liberty) of the nation. They do it (or should do it) to defend rights. There can be times when there will be little, if any, need for screening or restrictions of any kind (which will be a time when rational prevails, and is consequence o that) and there will be times when restrictions and screening might need to be heavy or severe. A context of war is clearly such a time. Your position, though, seems to be - and correct me if I am wrong - that even in the context of WWII it was a violation of individual rights to restrict immigration from Nazi Germany?
My position does not violate individual rights. It defends them.
You are wrong
Whenever I want to understand some part of economics..I always start from the simple and build on that.. I apply the idea/concept to the the simple " Island", model....and also the basic "household model"... and then build to a macro model. .. ie... moving from 2 individuals, in a closed economy....to a household.... to a large group....etc
I can't see why this cant be applied to the ideas of immigration , discussed above....???
eg... Do Clubs have the right to choose and exclude members..??
If so...why..., and on what basis.??
etc...etc...
To me , there is an apparent conflict between individual vs community ..... and it seems to be shades of grey...in regards to what might be the commonsense.."Truth".. in regards to which view might be right or wrong....etc
So... I see some validity in both lines of argument. ( in comments thread )
Just my own view......
There is no conflict between individual and community from the perspective of individual rights. There is no such thing as community rights. That isn't the conflict here. The conflict arises from different views of the current geopolitical context. Some of us see the reality that we are at war and that the ultimate aim for us from here on should be to fight it and win, in defence if Western Civilisation and liberty. If that requires putting open immigration on hold, then so be it.
Bosch Fawstin puts it brilliantly in this comment:
"What Trump is doing today should have been done right after 9/11, and it should have included Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We Are At War. Enough."
Too many libertarian ideologues are so wrapped up in their ideology that they have lost sight of the real world values that they do have.
Explain to me how and why I am wrong.
I am open to my errors, Mark. I don't want to hold falsehoods. If I am wrong, I don't know where I am wrong, but I'm happy to have it corrected.
Mark, I'll have another attempt at pressing this issue, because it's an important issue and I think that getting to the crux of differences would be worthwhile. I think there is a lot of common ground between us, so it should not be too difficult to track down the problem. With that in mind, I'd like to make a point by point list to find our common ground and where we diverge. Do we diverge over a difference in perception of context, therefore of application, or a difference in principle itself.
So here's how I see it point by point.
1. We are both libertarians.
2. We both believe individuals have rights as requirements of their nature. The right to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, etc. In short, the right life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
3. It is ideal then, from the viewpoint of an individual who values liberty, to politically secure those rights.
4. Politically securing those rights is not a given, and not a right. It is a value to be achieved just like any other value. It requires no less a building and ongoing maintenance of value than putting a roof over your head or food on your table, and probably requires much more effort and maintenance than those.
5. Securing those rights requires the building of a government that is constitutionally limited to securing and defending those rights.
6. Such a government, once achieved, has the obligation to secure and defend the rights of its citizens, and of residing non-citizens within its jurisdictional boundaries, but no obligation to non-citizens outside of its boundaries. Any help to non-citizens outside of the borders is up to the citizens, not the government, in accord with their benevolence and means.
7. To violate that is to usurp and sacrifice the benevolence means of the citizens that the government is obligated to. It would be to create another Welfare project.
8. Given that the governments obligations are to its citizens in securing and defending their rights, it means they have an obligation to ensure that non-citizens (who they have no obligations to at all) entering its borders are not a threat to the security and rights of its citizens.
9. This means that non-citizens do not have an automatic right to enter the country. It is a value they might wish to achieve (and all power to them achieiving it if they are deserving of it) but it must be earned, just as all those who built the free-society have earned it.
10. Given the above, and the nature of the world, it is clear that there can be contexts in which screening can be minimal and near non-existent. There can also be times when screening needs to be heavy to extreme. The clearest is the contrast between war and peace. The context determines.
11. Such screening does not violate rights, rather, it defends them.
Post a Comment