<p>“About HAVING to. About not having favorable conditions in the land of your birth, language and family so that your children can share your culture and heritage.”</p>
<p>Why is experiencing culture and heritage a right? These are merely preferences like “I like blue”.</p>
<p>See what I mean, Zoosermom?:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“Hence, any and all immigration should be welcomed.”</p>
<p>Surely you jest. Is it “moral” to convert the U.S. into a 3rd World country with a population the size of India, China, etc.? Because that is what will happen if “any and all immigration” is welcomed. I say it is not moral. I say what is moral is for us – not through NAFTA – (did I say NAFTA, mini? No, of course not. I love how you use every opportunity to create straw men so that you can bring up your pet peeves) – but through sophisticated, grander-scale Peace Corps-like projects, to create opportunity, Green industrialization & better distributed prosperity among overseas countries whose only current alternative is to move to the U.S. en masse.</p>
<p>The young people especially, but many successful semi-retired people as well – are invigorated with idealism grounded in practical knowledge & experience, to create in-place better conditions within OTHER countries. We absolutely have the means to help create many First Worlds on the globe. It needs to happen NOW, and we have a core population right here willing to join that adventure.</p>
<p>@poetsheart</p>
<p>“If you can’t figure out the answer to that one, I’m sure no one here can explain it to your satisfaction. You are being deliberately obtuse, and I’m sure most people can see that. Therefore, it would be an exercise most foolish to further engage you in the topic at hand. I certainly don’t plan to. Others may continue to try, but I suspect that even they will choose to ignore your “arguments” sooner rather than later.”</p>
<p>If it’s so obvious, please tell me. I am not asking because I haven’t heard the arguments before, but I want you to say it first so I can sow how ridiculous the arguments are.</p>
<p>“Therefore, it would be an exercise most foolish to further engage you in the topic at hand. I certainly don’t plan to. Others may continue to try, but I suspect that even they will choose to ignore your “arguments” sooner rather than later.”</p>
<p>Eggsactly! I think he or she isn’t American because the “life, liberty and pursuit of happines” reference went over his/her head.</p>
<p>“You do as well. You have a computer which you could have not bought and donated the money to somebody else.”</p>
<p>I donate a substantial amount of money and time. I ask you again What do you do? Still no answer.</p>
<p>“Surely you jest. Is it “moral” to convert the U.S. into a 3rd World country with a population the size of India, China, etc.? Because that is what will happen if “any and all immigration” is welcomed. I say it is not moral. I say what is moral is for us – not through NAFTA – (did I say NAFTA, mini? No, of course not. I love how you use every opportunity to create straw men so that you can bring up your pet peeves) – but through sophisticated, grander-scale Peace Corps-like projects, to create opportunity, Green industrialization & better distributed prosperity among overseas countries whose only current alternative is to move to the U.S. en masse.”</p>
<p>FYI, the mercantilistic model you propose (e.g. protectionism) will always fall. It explains why some countries prosper then fall while those who were low take their place. It is impossible to ensure high wages, especially in this global economy. Those who resort to medieval forms of production (e.g. mercantilism) will fall behind in the long run.</p>
<p>Peace-corps like projects, green subsidies, and other governmental programs will not bring about enough to transform a nation into a 1st-world nation. In all instances, it has been self-sufficiency (e.g. capitalism which creates jobs which are demanded, not corporatism which creates jobs a few determine to be useful).</p>
<p>If your end goal is sustained prosperity for all (or even current citizens of the first-world), then allowing open immigration is the best option. people will tend to leave to go to nations with better economic systems and conditions, forcing the third-world country to adopt more of the successful policies that will allow it to compete.</p>
<p>@zoosermom</p>
<p>I am fully aware of your reference to the Constitution, a piece of paper written by sadistic people to trick non-violent people like you and me into thinking that rights are those which are written by the masters onto paper without any consultation of those it applies to.</p>
<p>“I donate a substantial amount of money and time. I ask you again What do you do? Still no answer.”</p>
<p>I have volunteered in a hospital and sent books to prisoners. Not that it matters, since I never claimed the pursuit of happiness (e.g. a good job and culture) is a right. Since you are still responding to me, I take it that you still have not sold your computer and donated the proceeds to ensure the best possible conditions (whatever that means) for others.</p>
<p>"I have volunteered in a hospital and sent books to prisoners. "</p>
<p>In other words, you contribute nothing, therefore your opinion is not valid.</p>
<p>Good night.</p>
<p>Great job forgoing logic and all the other nonsense.</p>
<p>My assertions are not opinions.</p>
<p>“Peace-corps like projects, green subsidies, and other governmental programs will not bring about enough to transform a nation into a 1st-world nation. In all instances, it has been self-sufficiency (e.g. capitalism which creates jobs which are demanded, not corporatism which creates jobs a few determine to be useful).”</p>
<p>Peace-corps-like does not necessarily mean government-driven, although it could mean government-assisted. But much more apropos would be private work, which tends to succeed better.</p>
<p>“the mercantilistic model you propose (e.g. protectionism)”</p>
<p>I suggested no such thing. Not protectionism, but empowerment within the existing cultures/countries, driven by the natives but with assistance from First World trans-national know-how, supported by those with positive energy, which apparently would not be yourself. Want to know (some of you) what’s going on with community service, from high school age through adults? Precisely this kind of global effort (among other things).</p>
<p>In other words, the movement is precisely toward self-sufficiency, away from exploitation, colonization, or ill-fitting models.</p>
<p>If you do not propose protectionism, then you must be against restrictions on immigration. If you are against restrictions on immigration, people who are able to will migrate to places of prosperity, leaving the country that was left behind to have to adopt the policies which bring prosperity.</p>
<p>If your program is government-assisted, how can it lead toward self-sufficiency? All indications point that it is not possible (e.g. Africa). The only time some major leap in sustained prosperity occurs is when it comes out of pressures and determination, not mercantilism and charity.</p>
<p>These ideals are great and all, but they are inherently unworkable. A system which does not place bias towards rewarding efforts (but rewards political favors) will inevitably fail due to the problem of economic calculation.</p>
<p>[Economic</a> calculation problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem]Economic”>Economic calculation problem - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>It is inherent in any non-capitalistic system (including the US). How will we know what solutions are the most efficient and the best without some sort of feedback system (i.e. prices)?</p>
<p>Re Post 72:
You may convince yourself that supposedly you know much about theoretical models, but even if you do (which does not appear to be true), you know almost nothing about what is really happening out there, here and now, in innovative w</p>
<p>Who said anything about massive (or infinite immigration)? You can already see how it happened with the Soviet Union. They collapsed because of economic reasons. China is only here today because it changed its system. India is slowly changing and is booming as a result.</p>
<p>As long as corrupt governments exist to protect the politicians and certain businesses’ interests, there will be little headway in progress. Any model for progress needs incentives and a chance at a great life (e.g. immigration) for many impoverished people will be a huge incentives for those countries to adapt.</p>
<p>These programs which you suggest have no bias towards the most demanded, most efficient, and cheapest solutions. This shows how at a fundamental level, your proposals are unworkable. There is no need to move beyond this analysis to look at the world for further confirmation (which would confirm my assertions); if a system is inherently contradictory, it cannot succeed in the long run. Your system is contradictory because of the aforementioned things (efficiency and protectionism).</p>
<p>Trying to keep conditions well for a few temporarily with protectionism is like trying to force everybody to close their blinds from the sun to stimulate candlemaking businesses. It’s pointless and not efficient at all.</p>
<p>Much of the rest of your post is pretty wordy and vague. Can you be a bit more specific? Specifically, what does this mean: "you know almost nothing about what is really happening out there, here and now, in innovative w</p>
<p>“Who said anything about massive (or infinite immigration)?”</p>
<p>YOU, that’s who! (Post 47, Post 32, others)</p>
<p>“Specifically what does this mean?..” I specified it already. Nothing vague about it; nothing wordy.</p>
<p>“If these things you claim regarding this blend are so great, how come they’re doing so badly?”</p>
<p>^^ The fact that you know so little about how well & efficiently these blends are working, merely demonstrates how narrow your understanding & knowledge are. They are doing swimmingly, but they are being done in small units because they are effectively “start-up” concepts & efforts requiring time, & would prosper more quickly with additional apolitical volunteer help from consortia of First World contributors. I’m glad the people committed to these movements have not your negativity.</p>
<p>“‘Culture, prosperity, and family are not rights’”</p>
<p>We call those “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and we think they ARE rights."</p>
<p>This is inaccurate. Culture, prosperity, and family do not equate to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness means that one is free to pursue that which one chooses, not that one will necessarily prosper. Culture has nothing to do with life, culture deals with a mode of living, not the actual state of living. Family also has nothing to do with the other factors: families have the right to live, the right to seek prosperity, and the right to liberty (which is independence, freedom of choice) – that is all that is said.</p>
<p>I would recommend that those of you who might wish to understand the founding principles of our nation read some of John Locke’s works: the concept of natural rights advocated by Locke had an enormous influence over the views of the most influential men during the Revolution and the formation of our nation.</p>
<p>On another note, arguing that one’s opinion is worthy because you volunteer often and are a kind person is inherently faulty logic. If you wish to debate something rationally, use facts and solid arguments to further your position rather than resorting to name-calling and emotional appeals.</p>
<p>“YOU, that’s who! (Post 47, Post 32, others)”</p>
<p>Do you really think that many people can afford to buy a home in first-world country, much less travel to one? Probably a lot of people will move, but you’re making it seem like half a country is going to come. If they do come, why is such massive immigration unfeasible? There have been times in the past of massive immigration and it ultimately lead to better lives for those who moved (e.g. Germans, Irish, Polish, Russian,etc.)</p>
<p>“I specified it already. Nothing vague about it; nothing wordy.”</p>
<p>Maybe you weren’t wordy, but you were very vague and you have yet to show what incentives are built into your system for it to succeed. Similarly, I would look incredulously at someone who thought I was wrong to doubt them about how well their perpetual motion device will work when I know that the basic laws of physics make such a system impossible (just like how the lack of incentives make your “developing” system impossible).</p>
<p>To use another analogy: I apply for a $500,000 research grant and my proposal is to create matter out of nothing. The foundation does not give it to me and I complain “but you didn’t see the results!”. Of course they don’t need to see the results. Not only are the premises faulty, but seeing the results would require a massive investment (e.g. an entire workforce to implement your “system”).</p>
<p>At what point are you willing to concede that your proposals are faulty? Furthermore, what countries have these programs you speak of? Specifically, what do people involved in this program do? Rebuilding villages? Managing co-ops? What?</p>
<p>If you’re pre-requisite for success is more volunteers, what are the incentives for volunteers to perform in a good fashion much less actually join the program? So before you criticize me for being ignorant about these start-up programs, prove the incentives for such a system to function well.</p>
<p>@Business guy</p>
<p>I would trust that you first read the whole post and the reply before quoting it. That part you quoted did not correspond to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the parts it corresponds to from zoosermom’s post:</p>
<p>“Obviously you do begrudge illegal immigrants the best life possible. Do you think they want to live the lives they do, separated from their families and culture? Given a choice, many would build lives at home, but people like you either exploit their desperation or turn a blind eye when others do. I find that shameful. It seems to disturb you when the contradictions between your words and actions are pointed out.”</p>
<p>families=family
culture=culture
Given a choice, many would build lives at home, but people like you either exploit their desperation or turn a blind eye when others do. I find that shameful.=prosperity (e.g. right to a job and high wages,etc.)</p>
<p>“I would recommend that those of you who might wish to understand the founding principles of our nation read some of John Locke’s works: the concept of natural rights advocated by Locke had an enormous influence over the views of the most influential men during the Revolution and the formation of our nation.”</p>
<p>I like the homesteading proviso, but some of Locke’s stuff contradicts itself, namely his “limits to accumulation”. You either own something or you don’t. There is no middle ground.</p>
<p>I was specifically referring to post 58 in which zoosermom asserted that “We call those ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and we think they ARE rights,” after quoting your statement that “Culture, prosperity, and family are not rights.” I see far too often that people see “pursuit of happiness” and use it to support entitlement arguments. </p>
<p>Well if you notice with Locke, the limits to accumulation only occurs when there is not a monetary system. The reason why he separates the two is it allows him to show that by accepting a monetary system to solve the problem of limits to accumulation, one also accepts all else that follows with having a monetary system. </p>
<p>I’m not taking a position in your argument, just pointing out flawed logic on zoosermom’s end.</p>
<p>"I see far too often that people see “pursuit of happiness” and use it to support entitlement arguments. "
I’m a conservative republican. I don’t ever make entitlement arguments. There was nothing flawed in my argument, taken in context. Feel free to offer your opinions, tough.</p>