|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 16, 2012 10:31 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:35, 16 May 2012.
|
If we dump socialism completly than the streets will burn and all the suburbs and beyond would descend into chaos and anarchy. Criminality, racism and poverty would sky rocket. The divide between non-integrated immigrants and integrated ones plus swedes would be huge.
But getting rid of socialism could never happen, as we have the most politically correct politicans in the world. Some of them completly avoid reality and call somalis the greatest entreprenurs in the world. 8 out of 10 of them do not have a job. Of course it is not their fault, the failed immigration and integration policies and the politicans behind them are to blame. If I was a somali then I would move to Sweden too if I got the chance.
But I like wellfare. Wellfare gives me money every month for going to school. It helps me if I get sick or wounded. It supports my education and gives me quality, ad-free public service tv and radio. It gives me an excellent opportunity to study and become something and I am very saddened that a lot of people don't see that opportunity.
So I'm a supporter of socialliberalism.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2012 10:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If we dump socialism completly than the streets will burn and all the suburbs and beyond would descend into chaos and anarchy. Criminality, racism and poverty would sky rocket. The divide between non-integrated immigrants and integrated ones plus swedes would be huge.
Why?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 16, 2012 10:59 PM |
|
|
Well, it would happen, but the private would profit a lot by offering services to avoid just that happening. Still, it would take quite a few years for the "decay" to hit, and the worst that happens is just a few minor short term effects.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2012 11:33 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Suppose it costs, say, $15 a day to feed someone with the soup kitchens. Would it not be better to just give that person the $15 and let them spend it however they like? If they want to spend it all on food, it's exactly the same as giving them food. If they want to spend some of it differently (suppose they want less food than average), they can spend it on something they prefer more. It costs the same $15 for the taxpayers and the person receiving it benefits the same or more, so isn't this better in every way?
Quote:
When a lot of very different folks try to live under the same roof, everyone has to make some concessions.
But we don't "live under the same roof". My neighbor and I may pay taxes to the same government as I do, and follow the same laws, but that doesn't mean he wants to be forced to support me if I'm hungry, or that I want to be forced to support him.
Quote:
As for your point about people flocking to get the better treatment, if an illegal immigrant goes ill and uses the hospital, it becomes obvious that he's an illegal immigrant. So anyone counting on prolonged healthcare would have to immigrate legally, as far as I imagine it. It'd be ethically optimal to provide healthcare to every citizen of the world that wants it, of course, but I can hardly think of a country that can finance that, even if some of them DID take kajillions off of weapon research, so I had to learn to live with that.
And if it's discovered that he's an illegal immigrant, he gets deported? Deportation isn't free. It'd be better not to give him medical care (if he can't pay for it himself) because he hasn't paid for it, neither through taxes nor directly. Also, legal immigrants would come to the country to take advantage of the better medical care, and you can't deport them for it. Finally, how can something be "ethically optimal" if it's impossible or highly undesirable?
As for a government "providing for its own citizens", it really means taking from some citizens and giving it to strangers who happen to be other citizens. I don't see any fundamental moral difference between that and giving it to strangers who aren't citizens.
Xerox:
Regarding foreign aid, it's been observed that foreign aid programs often employ the most capable native workers, so they end up working for whatever organization is distributing foreign aid. If you live in Somalia and you happen to be educated and know English, and you have the opportunity to work for an aid organization rather than for some Somalian company, you'll do that (because they pay more and it's probably safer), but that means foreign aid takes away workers that would have been doing something else - and it's taking away the best workers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2012 01:05 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:05, 17 May 2012.
|
Quote:
Why?
Because a great deal of injustice creates instability in a society. It is extremly naive to believe that over a hundred thousand immigrants who are completly dependant on wellfare would just accept that. They would not be able to make a living as it is pretty much impossible for them to find work (and its very hard for the few uneducated swedes too). This would result in riots and increased criminality.
It is important to note that the connection between somalis and swedes/other integrated immigrant groups is pretty much zero and that gap would explode if they were forced into poverty. There is a minimal sense of "social communion" (I can't find the english word=( )
I believe Poland is pretty homogenous society so you don't experience any of those problems.
mvassilev: I'm thinking that foreign aid should be used to build up a country. Establish a working educational system, build schools, hospitals and residences, counter corruption, make people pay taxes etc. The goal is of course that the country should be able to support itself one day. I hate that we have to babysit Africa when it is the most resource rich continent.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2012 08:46 AM |
|
|
As long as things concerning a) Sex, b) Drugs and c) Gambling (in short: THINGS THAT ARE A LOT OF FUN FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE) are criminalized, all "low-lifes" (poor immigrants from poor countries, "getto"-born, school-dropouts and so on, in short: people who don't have much to lose in terms of a life anyway) have a very lucrative and very easy employment situation with additional career chances in the faking business (credit cards, expensive fashion and jewellery and so on), car stealing, petty theft and so on.
The problem is that there are TWO kinds of people that would be - in theory - eligible for welfare:
1) Those who in practise never were part of that specific society they are either refugees or very poor immigrants or getto-born (with gang-rule, no school, criminal parents and so on)
2) Those who are and had bad luck or a bad break.
The people under 2) are those who need some sort of support that will allow them to bridge the gap (so that they do not drop out of society).
The people under 1) are "produced" by the specific laws of a society: gettos are not developing as a matter of course; laws concerning S,D&G ar not happenstance either; immigration politics, border politics, education politics, money spent for these things.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 17, 2012 12:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because a great deal of injustice creates instability in a society. It is extremly naive to believe that over a hundred thousand immigrants who are completly dependant on wellfare would just accept that. They would not be able to make a living as it is pretty much impossible for them to find work (and its very hard for the few uneducated swedes too). This would result in riots and increased criminality.
Use the cash that used to support welfare to enforce the Police, at least for a few months. Let them use tear gas and good old batons. Beat up rioters, and put them to jail.
A few actions like that and they will be timid like children. Or leave your country. Or end up in jail.
Their choice.
Quote:
It is important to note that the connection between somalis and swedes/other integrated immigrant groups is pretty much zero and that gap would explode if they were forced into poverty. There is a minimal sense of "social communion" (I can't find the english word=( )
I believe Poland is pretty homogenous society so you don't experience any of those problems.
Poland is poor enough for "regular" native citizens to be in the situation of your Somalis.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 17, 2012 12:51 PM |
|
|
@MVass
The $15 point:
You can't imply that a meal in the public kitchen costs the same as one in a restaurant, even a rather shabby one. The official administration can directly get ingredients and food in far greater quantities, and thus far cheaper, than a private bakery or restaurant owner can. The shorter the private profit chain is, the less money is taken from the taxpayers. I'm hardly an economy expert but I think it'd pay off, even with employees to work in the public kitchens - which would also provide more jobs.
Besides, it's incredibly hard to calculate the exact sum people need for basic necessities. So you'd have to overpay them, and thus get the absolutely same thing as today.
The same roof point:
Your neighbour and you may share that opinion. The two families across the street may be a patriotic lot of the kind that refuses their nation to have a bad name and a worse living standard due to widespread extreme poverty or similar. People down the street may believe no one deserves to live in extreme poverty anyway. They might also disagree with, for instance, the right to bear arms and they had to learn to live with it. The rednecks in the trailer park on the other side of town may insist that everything would be solved if all the Latinos went back to Mexico and all the Chinese back to Japan. The youth from the ghetto a couple of blocks away makes a very decent living dealing crack and doesn't really have time for a prolonged discussion but they'd be more than eager to requisition your vehicle and pop a cap in yo ass. It's more complicated than what a guy and his neighbour may think and there's a reason a consensus on preventing extreme poverty was reached the way it was. Everyone is, of course, free to campaign against laws they don't like if I remember correctly.
The third point:
Mass low-class immigration certainly wouldn't get worse (on the contrary, it would most probably diminish significantly) if you simply offered food and medicine coupons instead of a lot of free money to anyone that knocks on your door, as you're implying the situation is now (I wasn't aware it was that simple for any starving African to settle legally over there, what with the green cards and whatnot).
Deportation isn't free, of course, far from it, but it's cheaper than providing for people indefinitely.
Let's not get into semantics over "ethically optimal". I said that in the context that everyone would sleep more nicely if it was possible to provide for everyone - but considering it's not, we need to work with what we've got.
Finally, there is no fundamental moral difference between helping out an impoverished countryman or an impoverished stranger. The only differences are in administration and practicality.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2012 03:26 AM |
|
|
Xerox:
Actually, natural resources are overrated, and sometimes even harmful. As you've pointed out, Africa is rich in natural resources and is still poor. Oil-rich countries (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) are making use of their resources, but their citizenry is still poor. Meanwhile, countries with no natural resources (Japan, South Korea) have grown from relative poverty to significant wealth.
Bak:
The point is, you can feed yourself for $15 a day now, without the soup kitchen infrastructure (which would take time and money to build, some bureaucracy to oversee, etc). Giving people money is cheaper. If it were that much cheaper to have the government feed the poor, why not have the government feed everyone? According to your logic, a "shorter profit chain" would lead to lower costs.
The same roof point: I don't agree with the consensus on reducing poverty, and I don't personally benefit from its reduction (momentarily ignoring the effects on crime). I don't see why I should pay for something that doesn't benefit me. If someone feels poverty is a great problem, they should feel free to donate their own money to the organization of their own choice, but leave me out of it.
Low-skilled migration: If you offer the low-skilled would-be legal immigrants anything for free, that's already better than what they're getting in their home countries (probably nothing). Of course, if you make the laws such that it would be difficult for such would-be immigrants to come to a first-world country and settle there legally, that problem is partially avoided (even though illegal immigration would increase with soup kitchens and emergency care for anyone who wants it, regardless of immigration status), but that shifts the debate to what immigrants to allow in and which to keep out. It would then be optimal to only allow high-skilled immigrants in, who are unlikely use any kind of government assistance, but then you're taking away the opportunities of some low-skilled immigrants who want to work and have no desire to rely on government services.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 18, 2012 11:18 AM |
|
|
Well, first off, no one would use a public kitchen if they could eat regularly.
Secondly, I didn't say it was better for the economy to have the administration provide for everyone's food. I said that if it does provide for someone's food, it's more cost effective for the administration directly to be the medium between the producers and the impoverished, and perhaps to even, in part, be the producer. Public, or soup kitchens as I see you call them over there, were always reserved for the severely impoverished.
You're an economist. You probably know that making an investment that will make things more profitable in the long run is worth it. If a system of public services is well developed to the point that it costs less and reduces the amount of welfare leeches, or even costs the same but provides jobs in the public sector, it'll pay off (one employee's salary for every, say, 15 or so welfare recipients should already pay off even with the production costs of food).
And I do believe the welfare leech population would take a hit. If I understood it right, they are used to a certain greater level of comfort as of now. The system of services would give you the bare necessities, but not much more, and it's definitely harder to abuse it (how much crack can you get in exchange for your kid's food coupon anyway).
With a good marketing campaign, probably far cheaper than that of a single presidential candidate during the run, you could spread the "Uncle Sam or Chuck Norris or whoever the **** wants YOU to support shelters for the poor" idea around and get quite a bit of voluntary funding and aid for the project, lifting the weight off the administration's shoulders. Don't tell me that an hour long documentary about hungry folks in their back yard wouldn't touch people at least as much as the Kony 2012 thing did - and here they'd get the chance to help out first hand.
The same roof point: laws, much to my dismay (believe you me), also apply to people who don't like them, don't need them, and definitely don't profit from them. It's sometimes simply not enough to rely on charity and good will to shepherd the weak through the valley of darkness build that hospital on the other side of the state, so the government robs everyone of a couple of dollars, builds the thing and calls it a day. You don't really profit from the Iraqi war or bombing Libya either and taxpayer money's still funding it.
You can also look at it this way. In a system of charity, people who wish to help, the few of them, are forced to pay a lot in order for the hospital to get built, while folks that feel no such need have nothing to do with the whole thing. But in a tax system, people who don't want to help are fiscally punished for being arseholes and their money promptly goes to people who gave their money voluntarily as a reward (of course, a tad less than what they gave), effectively leading to everyone paying the same and divine justice being satisfied. Of course, that'd be administratively cumbersome, so the paperwork is shortened to "everyone cough up 20 bucks for a hospital".
It's foolproof.
Now, as for the final point, as long as your country is better than theirs, and certainly as long as you're convincing everyone that yours is the best there ever was, people are going to be settling in. I understand that every country has a place people migrate from - be it Algerians in France, Somalis in Sweden or Mexicans in the USA. I understand that the American government, right now, doesn't give illegals pretty much anything (of course, the American people gives them jobs considering they're willing to work for next to nothing). Evidently, they're not coming for the free food, they're coming for the jobs and a less than 50% chance that they get shot in a drug war crossfire every day. And besides, you could make the services only available to legals; require them to show the paper every month in order to get the coupons or whatever.
If you made the coupons non-personalized, some sort of a post-apocalyptic black market for those would probably show up, so it might not be the best idea anyway. You could give them those card thingies. The kind that goes beep, like those for public transportation (over here in Europe at least). So what you do is, they bring you the documentation, you type their name in, beep beep, you give them their monthly service card with a little photo of them on it. If they lose it, they bring you the paper again, beep beep, you give them another one and render the previous one unavailable.
Or you could just use their regular ID card and a database. But this is the 21st century and we're talking about America. Nothing's too cyberpunk.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2012 10:22 PM |
|
|
No one would use a public kitchen if they could eat regularly? I disagree. Plenty of people would, and not just poor people - lazy people too. "I don't feel like cooking today, I'll go to the local public kitchen instead."
Second, the government is notoriously inefficient at producing stuff. Just look at the American public education system. Just because the government sets the goal of, say, feeding people, it doesn't mean that the government has to feed them itself. It can use existing infrastructure and give people money that they can spend at the grocery store of their choice (and there are plenty of those).
Quote:
If a system of public services is well developed to the point that it costs less and reduces the amount of welfare leeches, or even costs the same but provides jobs in the public sector, it'll pay off
You know what reduces the number of welfare leeches even more? Abolishing welfare. Also, this would be funded through taxes, which destroy jobs, so even if they create jobs in the public sector, it's a net loss.
Quote:
Don't tell me that an hour long documentary about hungry folks in their back yard wouldn't touch people at least as much as the Kony 2012 thing did - and here they'd get the chance to help out first hand.
You're an optimist. An hour-long documentary like that would inspire people to clamor for more government intervention. "We still have poor people?! Why hasn't the government done something about that?!" Kind of like KONY 2012 led people to call for military intervention in Uganda.
No, I don't profit from the wars in Iraq or Libya - and I oppose them. That's not an argument for building hospitals with government funds, it's more of an argument against it. I should be forced to support things I don't like, simply because it's the law? Quite authoritarian. If your argument is 'The government already does things you don't like, it should do some more", I don't buy it.
Quote:
In a system of charity, people who wish to help, the few of them, are forced to pay a lot in order for the hospital to get built, while folks that feel no such need have nothing to do with the whole thing. But in a tax system, people who don't want to help are fiscally punished for being arseholes
In a system of charity, no one is forced to do anything. Taxation is dependent on the use of force, but charity is voluntary, so there's no force involved. And I strongly take issue with your assertion that people who don't want to help are "arseholes". They have other priorities. Who are you to tell them your preferences (in particular, your preference for less poverty) are more important than theirs? To them, you're evil - they haven't hurt anyone, and yet you're advocating for the use of force against them (and they're right). The initiation of force is far more evil than any refusal to do something voluntarily.
As for the immigrants: so, supposing an illegal immigrant were to show up at a hospital for emergency care, what should happen? I think they should be turned away. And it's not really the illegal immigrants I have a problem with - America's welfare state is limited enough to the point where its overuse by immigrants is not much of a problem. The real problem is that many immigrants (especially illegals) are poor, so they settle in poor neighborhoods and have children there. The parents may work hard and never commit crimes, but the children grow up in ghettos, go to bad schools, and find it easy to fall in with a bad crowd. The children are disproportionately likely to turn to crime - and, since they're native-born citizens, they can't be deported.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2012 05:18 AM |
|
|
Immigration issue is mostly a political ground, where every faction has to fight against far right views because it needs to keep voters in. They would rather get drown than recognize that far right is NOT wrong to ring the bells.
As it is now, the huge disproportion between immigrants and native natality will lead in a couple of years to bigger and bigger communitarism, and finally a take over upon natives, statistics don't lie.
Also it is impossible to separate today arab from Islam, because in 99% of cases it goes together, thus I doubt Sharia will be welcome by socialists or other weak souls like, because this is what will happen.
I find rather significant that the people making moral tirades over this thread are mostly those living in areas where there is 0% immigration, as the Balkans. Is not that I don't agree with moral views, I do, but when your house is collapsing, you don't care about the birds taking cover under the roof.
When a country feeds already 10 million of immigrants, is it fair to accuse it of racism if it refuses more because can't handle? I think not.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2012 11:31 AM |
|
|
Yes it is, unless they actually focus on the problem (socialism) and not people (who are just taking an opportunity instead of starving in their ****hole countries. You'd do same in their position).
We don't need immigration in Poland to see the problem because people i.e. in Warsaw resort to blaming people from smaller towns and villages. "they come here, take our jobs, and want social service, why don't they stay in their own village" - sounds familiar? You see, if there's no other culture available, people resort to a smaller circle, like their own nation, ultimately leading to the conclusion that race OR nationality does not have anything to do with this social behavior because it will happen even among "kin". People just _need_ the scapegoat, be it Muslims, villagers or whatever else comes to their attention.
It might be justified biologically to feel annoyance or even hostility towards "strangers", but we should, as humanity, rise beyond petty biological instincts.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2012 01:31 PM |
|
|
In short, you are saying that they threat themselves with racism, because for unknown reason they starve in their country, and when immigrating, all the remaining world has to behave better and substitute to their own government? And why so? Allow me to give you a close example:
You have a family with kids, but parents spend their time out of house and drinking, while kids starving. What you imply is that any other family, no matter economic state of how many kids it has already, is supposed to take care of those kids. If it does not, everyone is raising fingers and call them "bad parents", while no one is pointing at former parents. What about their responsibility?
And yes, I did exactly the same thing as them, except that I had already all the diplomas required for any job in my field. At that time, Romania was not in the EU, I had NO access to welfare and no possibility for scholarship neither. I was highly discriminated but did not take it personally, and found my place using my training, as everyone should.
I don't see how the Poland situation is similar to France or UK, those are completely different things. Basically your country can't even take care of its citizens, it is the same equation as in all the area around, I know it very well because this is where I come from.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2012 02:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You have a family with kids, but parents spend their time out of house and drinking, while kids starving. What you imply is that any other family, no matter economic state of how many kids it has already, is supposed to take care of those kids. If it does not, everyone is raising fingers and call them "bad parents", while no one is pointing at former parents. What about their responsibility?
Individuals in a poor country are powerless. Your examples are invalid. They imply individuals in Somalia (for example) can actually do anything to change the situation, which is most often not true.
Again, why are you not opposed to socialism, but to immigration? You wouldn't be milked without socialism. Immigrants coming to your country would have to find a job rather than take free cash and fornicate.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 19, 2012 08:10 PM |
|
|
|
As I said, socialism or not socialism give same unlimited rights to immigration, because doing the opposite will place them along far right borders. What I meant was that former countries should get a penalty before pointing the destination country. So before criticizing France or UK, I would prefer to have a strong veto on those countries which care not much about their population. But openly we are very censured when say anything about african countries, it is simply politically incorrect.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 19, 2012 11:08 PM |
|
|
Salamandre:
Aside from Native Americans, which are a small proportion of the population, the US is entirely comprised of immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and yet it hasn't fallen apart. Maybe the difference is the amount of welfare given immigrants? Back in the late 19th century, immigration was much freer than it is now, and yet few countries had an immigrant problem. That was also before welfare. It seems the answer is obvious.
As for Sharia Law, the solution is simple - restrict immigrants' voting rights, and abolish birthright citizenship.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 20, 2012 01:23 AM |
|
|
Last time I checked USA was a monoculture, with a few branches being "toxic" and "separated" to the mainstream, such as the gangsters.
Its not a matter of immigration, so stop playing that poetic tune: The issue is assimilation, and if its anything USA has proven is that assimilation is possible. But would you be OK with a bunch of Mexicans guerriljaing over the border, and then creating a Mexican city after driving out the current assimilated Americans? A poor example, because the South Americans tends to have a lot of Christian values and a lot of the western ones, just with a bit more of the influence of poverty. But lets say there was a country in the South of America that was a survivor the Inkas, and their culture is not exactly compitable with the western moral without 1-2 generations of assimilation. Would you still be ok with a large amount of starting a ghetto, then drivingo out the USA people, and then starting a separate culture within USA?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2012 01:47 AM |
|
|
As long as they follow the law and don't initiate force or fraud, I don't care what kind of culture they have.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 20, 2012 02:48 AM |
|
|
But they don't respect the law, and they create a uproar if they met the other culture. That IS the issue. So are you still ok with it, or will you sing more poetry?
(And why do they not respect the law? Because Western law is buildt on Western principels, a non western won't have respect for them, just as a western won't have respect for their laws. The only "respect" is for the tenets of the law that is mostly identical, but even then there is huge differences on actual implantation. Just look at even inside the west there is ah uge difference in perception over what a justice system should do, and how long the punishments should last.)
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
