Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

So if someone was against gay marriage, could I deport them, for example?

Not letting them in is not deporting them. I'm talking about economic immigrants, not refugees.

You also want to let in only people who are reasonably able to find jobs in your country, meaning they wont be a burden to society (criminality / welfare). EU failed spectacularly in this regard. For almost a year every bum from every islamist hellhole on this planet, was let in, no questions asked.

"

morbo wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

So if someone was against gay marriage, could I deport them, for example?

Not letting them in is not deporting them. I'm talking about economic immigrants, not refugees.

You also want to let in only people who are reasonably able to find jobs in your country, meaning they wont be a burden to society (criminality / welfare). EU failed spectacularly in this regard. For almost a year every bum from every islamist hellhole on this planet, was let in, no questions asked.

It's reasonable.

Then again, I haven't seen any hard statistic about the economic migrant problem (although it's known for a fact that it happens, many have commented about that already). In reddit there are some people that cannot even make a difference between a refugee and an economic migrant. Also, I have my doubts of how much there are in first place (again, poor data out there, just news).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

In reddit there are some people that cannot even make a difference between a refugee and an economic migrant.

Months ago everyone was let in, in bulk, without much or any control. The Balkan route was basically an illegal people trafficking operation, done on state level. Barely anyone asked for asylum in safe balkan states. All the so called "refugees" wanted to go north, Germany, Sweden.. (which are incidentally the two states with highest welfare in EU :P)

afaik, right now only people from Syria & Iraq are regarded as valid refugees, everyone else is a migrant. But even then, you have people without IDs or any documents, that claim to be from Syria / Iraq.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

BestUsernameEver wrote:

Tons of answers in the meantime and one better than the another, saved me a few lines of text.

Thank's a bunch people :)

Most answers didn't have anything to do with your original post anyway. Yours was strictly economical and you haven't really answered my questions.

But the others have already, other than that the way you're asking your questions are way too methodical and obvious for my taste.

Have a nice one :)

"

morbo wrote:

Months ago everyone was let in, in bulk, without much or any control. The Balkan route was basically an illegal people trafficking operation, done on state level. Barely anyone asked for asylum in safe balkan states. All the so called "refugees" wanted to go north, Germany, Sweden.. (which are incidentally the two states with highest welfare in EU :P)

The balkans, specially Greece, it's hardly a good place to stay. That place is in middle of an economical crisis. I'm not sure that just wanting to go to Germany or Sweden qualifies as being an economic migrant (I wonder how many of them even understand the fact that some want them to stop at the first safe country). It doesn't help that those are the only two countries that are relatively enthusiastic about the whole thing. Are you from any of those countries?

(I know there are millions in Turkey and Jordan too, and numbers could be too big to help them all, but still...)

"

BestUsernameEver wrote:

But the others have already, other than that the way you're asking your questions are way too methodical and obvious for my taste.

Have a nice one :)

Honestly? I see inconsistences in reasoning and buzzwords everywhere. For once, you should stop blaming one aligment for all worlds problems. For all the people that keep complaining about the left, they seem to ignore how many among the right are as problematic (as Merkel, or the neocons in US that started the last migratory wave indirectly with the whole Iraq thing). Corporate globalism now is a left thing, and open borders too in many people words. Multiculturalism is a problem except when it is the french or something (although a government engineering that stuff is another thing). Economic freedom is good except when other countries win and ours lose, so let's put tariffs to protect our industries.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, it seems.

On a lighthearted note, I'll share this link about the shitposting war between r/sweden and r/The_Donald. It seems Sweden won the dank meme war against some Trump supporters.

Highlight of the whole thing: In order to properly educate /r/Sweden about who exactly they are letting fuck their wives (and their goats), our "no racism" rule will no longer be enforced at all with regards to the middle east.

No ill ill against Trump supporters, but some of you are son unreal, XDDDD

Globalism is, generally speaking, a move toward the dissolution of distinct national identities and sovereignty, in favor of a global government and culture. That means:

*No borders

*Unfettered immigration

*A unified, planned economy with one currency

*A single set of laws which apply universally

...And generally, a central authority with minimal answerability to the proles.

No borders leads to messes like we see in the US and Europe, which leads to unfettered immigration. Of course, with all immigration being legal, there is no such thing as an "illegal alien," which can result in the growth of the welfare state as poor populations move into regions which provide the most benefits simply for drawing breath. This also leads to the (deliberate) dissolution of regional and national cultures, either through contamination or displacement. Diversity goes the way of the wind, in favor of the fastest breeders.

A unified, planned economy (preferably cashless) undercuts the competitiveness of individual markets, while allowing idiot government bureaucrats to inflict the maximum damage to production and distribution of goods and services (refer to the old USSR for a fine example). With only electronic exchange available, there can be no privacy in any form of commerce, while access to the economy can be blocked as a punitive measure against non-conformists and malcontents (i.e., "criminals").

A single "catch-all" set of laws, all in the name of ultimate equity and "fairness" cannot reflect the cultural and social values and mores of separate groups of people, nor is it meant to. Instead, it reinforces an international uniformity and identity with the Global Over-State, rather than any older, more traditional identity or loyalty.

Thus, the end result is a population largely composed of poor, dependent, loyal proles subject almost without recourse to a streamlined set of laws which de-emphasize individual liberty in favor of a social construct centered on conformity and submission. The elites run the show, rake in the dough, and walk on the backs of the "little people." Their arrogance is already showing; the survival of the EU is critical to their plans, which is why the Brexit won't pass.

Sound like fun to you? ='[.]'=

Are you sure you are talking about something someone actually wants? That sounds straight up from Deus Ex, with the whole One world government thing.

Here is what I see realistically happening:

-Less red taping on immigration, specially once more countries start to develop

-No planned economy, but a coordinated one from time to time (not dissimilar to what happens now)

-A single set of proposed laws that many states modify as they see fit (in the direction of the UN declaration of Universal Rights)

Half of what you propose is something an anarchocapitalist would propose, and the other half is something a communist would propose, so I'm not seeing it being done realistically. Actually, it's fairly contradictory.

Pretty much there has been only one thing similar to universal cash, and that's gold. It sucked hard. I'm not seeing an unification of money because it wouldn't allow to adjust the local economies via central bank.

And I cannot insist more: cultures come and go. You should care more about something more universal like human rights and knowledge, rather than culture. I wouldn't cry if a culture dissapears naturally, but it would be sad if some religious lunatics start a dictatorship.

If you care that much about breeders making the rest irrelevant, help civilization in other places, don't copy Brave New World with its "savage reservations".

The way I see it, one set of laws is okay for everyone because the proper function of law is NOT to enact the morality of a particular culture (or anyone, really). Instead, the proper function of law is to create and ensure liberty, to include the liberty to decide one's own morality and act upon it. In other words, law should give you the freedom to act morally and ethically, NOT provide you with morality and ethics.

Note that this makes the construction of laws much simpler. Does law require a firm grasp of morality and ethics? Not really. It does, however, require a firm grasp of the sociology of liberty.

This has been my consistent position this entire thread. If someone wants to be a homophobe with their own property, it's their property. If someone wants to ruin themselves with chemicals, it's their body. Etc.

But the real reason is this: while the nature of law and lawlessness demands that a certain minimum by nailed down in order to prevent chaos, going further than that is hubris. It's silly and wrong to pretend that our understanding of morality and ethics has reached its limit, that the behaviors we believe are good or acceptable today will not be seen as grossly and almost comically unethical in the future. (Consider American slavery for a moment.)

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Sherlock Holmes said it about deduction; I say it about government. More government is rarely better, because it is rarely the case that one can be sure enough about the proper course of action to justify a plan for those actions.

The same minimalistic standards of government are almost universally applicable.

That's where we disagree Scrotie; never let the perfect be enemy of the good.

Mistakes are done, but your risk-benefit analysis is not necessarily right. While we'll never achieve a perfect set of laws, there are some good ideas out there. The thing about many countries having their own laws is that they can compete between themselves; the best law set generates the best output (not economically per se). I see some common ground in lawmaking (a set of proposed laws for the whole world), but the rest is up for competence.