Subject:
|
Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 16:07:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2643 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> <388F7A61.E86A728A@voyager.net> <Foyv25.HE6@lugnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I'm just completely lost, Bruce, as to what point you're trying to make
> and what assumptions you've made in making it. My perception is that
> you're wiggling around, switching between what's here and now, and what
> you perceive to be the case in some alternate system which may or may
> not be Libertopia.
>
> At this point I'm not as amused as I was, because wiggling bores me.
I take it you don't read your own messages. You have outwiggled me the whole
way.
>
> One last try, though, to restate the gist of your
> argument/objection/whatever... If this isn't it, what is it?
>
> "we can't allow completely free immigration because there are
> unavoidable societal costs from doing so... immigrants may bring
> diseases with them, they may be violent, they may be needy and thus pose
> a burden on whoever or whatever they come into contact with, the
> canonical example being an immigrant that dies indigent while
> trespassing, who's going to clean up the body?...
For someone who doesn't understand, you summed it up pretty accurately. You
basically said if their is no public assistance then there can be no objection
to open immigration. My simple point is that things are not so cut and dried
as you make out.
> if Libertopia, (or any other society?) allows completely free
> immigration, there will be costs that it's not clear who has to bear,
> hence the statement that everyone has to be responsible for their
> actions may fail because some consequences happen with no clear idea of
> who caused them or who to go after to recover costs from..."
Very good! I must not be such a great wiggler after all. You have in your
arguments have clearly said I am responsible for someone else that I haven't
accepted responsiblity for.
>
> Is that essentially it?
Yes.
>
> If it is, the answer is, nothing is perfect. Oh well. Free immigration
> may have some costs that we can't avoid but has such huge upsides that
> it's worth it. Everything has risks, sometimes we can't assign blame
> exactly, that's just the way it goes. Trees fall, lightning strikes,
> people keel over and there isn't much you can do to make the world
> perfectly safe. All you can do is make it better than it is today.
Again, you equate something controlable (immigration) with something
uncontrollable (lightning). You are wiggling. Can we stop lightning at the
border? No. Should we stop someone at the border for any of the other reasons
enumerated throughout this conversation? Dunno. People come here for jobs.
The jobs are available. Issue them a work permit and keep everything above
board rather than all this sneaking about.
So, after all this, am I saying I'm not particularly in favor of stopping them
at the border? Yup. But there is a societal cost, and thus grounds for
objection (yes, I'm a devil's advocate).
>
> Now, if on the other hand your point is that we can't allow completely
> free immigration in todays USA... why, I absolutely agree. Never said we
> could.
Never said otherwise. You worded your statements such that I presumed your
would allow room to stop criminals, disease vectors, etc.
>
> If neither of those are it, let me know. But I'm pretty bored by this
> now given the number of comments like "mountain - molehill" where it
> seemed like you were looking for clarification at first, but my
> perception is that instead you were looking for opportunities to worm or
> poke fun.
I only made the comment about a toll-walkway to avoid arguments about
right-of-way. Frank mentioned it in passing. Discussing it bored me and it
simply became a wiggle point for you.
>
> Remember, I don't really care to convince the unconvincable, some people
> here are so screwed up in the head that no amount of discussion will
> bring them to see the light.
Oh, too true. If only you would read those words you just wrote.
Too bad really, their loss, but it's not my
> personal mandate to bring horses to water, much less get them to drink
> if they're too stupid to. I have other windmills that interest me more.
Agreed. But then, since the Libertarian party has gone nowhere for quite a
long time, I don't really need to. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
| (...) Maybe in the example of the toppling stiff, the responsibility is an assumed or implied responsibility that comes with owning land or property? As opposed to a direct responsibility such as that of your children etc. (...) Bruce, I know that (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
| (...) Please elaborate. We each seem to have a perception that the other is wiggling. Why is that? (...) Not exactly. I'd state it as, responsible for some bad occurance on my property that was an accident, not as, responsible for the immigrant (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Keeping Larry Amused
|
| <388F7A61.E86A728A@voyager.net> <Foyv25.HE6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm just completely lost, Bruce, as to what point you're trying to make and what assumptions you've made in making (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
