# If You Are in Favor of Open Borders. Why?



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 11, 2019)

I'm not looking to create a discussion between open vs closed/controlled borders but rather know why pro-open border folks like (or support) it so much.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Mar 11, 2019)

No idea. Anybody that does support open borders does not understand how it could completely kill an economy and puts it's citizens at risk.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

In which context?

Open borders within the EU are there to facilitate free movements of people, goods and money.

States usually have tariffs and taxes in place to safeguard their own economies, meaning, they have to control what gets into a country.

This process takes weeks, months. And it takes longer the more you want to disincentivize the import of a certain good.

When you then make trading unions, all of a sudden you have to remove borders, because the main benefit to trading unions is, that you remove all those barriers, save money for both sides, save people time, raise efficiencies, support different business models, ...

Basically within Europe nowadays we dont have much storage capability anymore - because our industries work "hand to mouth", so you import raw materials, and then use them to manufacture your goods as they come in. That makes everyone involved more competitive - because they save costs.

Now - when you've done away with borders for wares and goods, you basically will want to talk about doing the same for your own citizens. Also because of economic reasons, because it solves allocation issues.

(Germany currently needs medical workers for an overaging population, and they are willing to pay. Italy has a financial crisis and high youth unemployment > Italians take a 6 week german course and move to germany to work for their old folks. Business likes this very much.)


Your "outer borders" (at the edges of a trade zone) are pretty much always hard borders. (With people controlling whos transitioning.)

America has open borders between states for example. But you then also have a system that can give money from richer states to poorer states to keep them at least "functioning", or help them out in a crisis f.e. - so basically with open borders you save everyone money and time, and get bigger markets (one ruleset instead of lets say 15 important for exports from other countries > who then are more willing to trade with you, ...) - but you also have to keep everyone roughly at the same economic "competitiveness" level, because if you do not - one state would start to undercut the other, or one state would want to refuse to payback state loans (if they see the system as unfair) - and then the system gets unstable.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

Glory to Arstotzka.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

There is also "opening a border" for humanitarian reasons. In which case, you basically let a usually substantial number of immigrants into a certain country.

This is basically done to prevent an "acute crisis".

So you have lets say 50.000 people in one country, that want into another country, and the country they are in cant handle the situation anymore, and they start to march....

... then you still cant shoot or let them camp out on your border for years ...

so you open your borders, let them register, and then slowly deal with them over time. (However you politically decide...)

This is done, so you dont have images of humanitarian catastrophes within or at your borders on TV all the time.

That usually doesnt happen very often as well.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



IncredulousP said:


> Glory to Arstotzka.


Papers please! 

(Play it.  )


----------



## Naendow (Mar 11, 2019)

I hink it depends. The idea behind the EU is pretty good, even if you can argue how it works at the moment. But i.e. opened borders for pretty much every country in the world would be the biggest chaos that could happen.


----------



## Cyan (Mar 11, 2019)

You forget that USA has open border on each USA's states too. I can imagine that's what EU wanted to achieve.
edit: Ah, notimp already said it before me.

Do you mean open border withing europe, or with outside countries? or just in general from any country?
I don't know what I really think, I guess I'm used to see a lot of people from many countries, lot of immigrants, and not only from Europe. I don't see a lot of refugees, my nearest country's border is blocking them. but if they manage to pass through, they want to go to UK so we don't notice them in my town.
I don't know enough the political or economical subject to tell whether it's good or bad.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

The correct english word for "trading union" is customs union btw.  "Trading union" is more descriptive though...


----------



## blahblah (Mar 11, 2019)

GBATemp is not a website for right wing neo-fascist garbage. Please, go away. Go back to Facebook.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

blahblah said:


> GBATemp is not a website for right wing neo-fascist garbage. Please, go away. Go back to Facebook.



It's not really a website for left-wing extremist views, either. Either extreme view is pure garbage.

To hell with illegal immigration. Key word, "illegal".


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> It's not really a website for left-wing extremist views, either. Either extreme view is pure garbage.
> 
> To hell with illegal immigration. Key word, "illegal".


But, if you are to be an extremist, it is better to be a right wing one than a left wing.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> But, if you are to be an extremist, it is better to be a right wing on than a left wing.



I wish to stay neutral on the topic, politics do nothing more than divide people and ruin friendships. Political discussion don't bridge gaps, nor do they benefit people on different sides of the spectrum IMO.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I wish to stay neutral on the topic, politics do nothing more than divide people and ruin friendships. Political discussion don't bridge gaps, nor do they benefit people on different sides of the spectrum IMO.


Lol. You said it best. As long as no one is trying to say that socialism or communism is best, then we can all fight for world peace together.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> It's not really a website for left-wing extremist views, either. Either extreme view is pure garbage.
> 
> To hell with illegal immigration. Key word, "illegal".


In some cases, illegal immigration can be a result of extreme policies affecting the bureaucratic processes of attaining citizenship. Situations like immigration are complex, and we should all know better than to immediately condemn anything considered "illegal" without rigorous, productive debate.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Lol. You said it best. As long as no one is trying to say that socialism or communism is best, then we can all fight for world peace together.



Exactly, I'm comfortable being cynical about political discussions, they never benefit anyone talking about it, no issues ever get resolved with political debates 



IncredulousP said:


> In some cases, illegal immigration can be a result of extreme policies affecting the bureaucratic processes of attaining citizenship. Situations like immigration are complex, and we should all know better than to immediately condemn anything considered "illegal" without rigorous, productive debate.



Maybe I'm too cynical, but we need better immigration laws and more vetting to make sure issues are curtailed. Illegal immigrants shouldn't have the same rights as naturalized citizens.  If the law is broken by illegal entry, it's a crime, IMO.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Political discussion don't bridge gaps, nor do they benefit people on different sides of the spectrum IMO.


Constructive, civil political discussion certainly can bridge gaps, and saying it won't benefit people on either side is further establishing a divide between political ideas. We must, calmly and with open minds, discuss the roots of our beliefs so we may all grow and understand each other, and ourselves, more.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Constructive, civil political discussion certainly can bridge gaps, and saying it won't benefit people on either side is further establishing a divide between political ideas. We must, calmly and with open minds, discuss the roots of our beliefs so we may all grow and understand each other, and ourselves, more.



I've yet to see that on any forum, to be perfectly blunt, here, IGN, Facebook, civil constructive political debates are rare. Anyone who dares support one side, like say Republican views, I've always seen people who are Democrats ridicule and vilify them for not believing the same views. It's asinine and unnecessarily toxic, and that alone has permanently ruined any and all political discussion. It's going to take a miracle to change my mind on that. I'm just being honest on why I try to avoid such discussions, no matter what I say or express, the other side will say I'm wrong, I'm blinded, or that I have to believe a certain way. Why can't people agree to disagree and move on civilly. Is that so much to ask?


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> But, if you are to be an extremist, it is better to be a right wing one than a left wing.


Extremists gaslight, project, obstruct justice, and commit terroristic murders. This on any side is bad.

edited for less bias


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Btw, right extremists gaslight, project, obstruct justice, and commit terroristic murders. Left extremists go homeless advocating for the abolishment of social and economic inequity.



Extremists shouldn't exist, period. Like Animal Rights groups, they don't really care about animals but only to shove their asinine views in how people shouldn't own any animals, even goldfish or cats. PETA, HSUS, ALF, are all extremist animal rights groups that have no right to exist. Animal welfare on the other hand, is much better and more moderate, and are for responsible animal care and advocate for ownership. PETA can die in a fire for all I care. I often call them AR Nazis because that's what they are.

But speaking of politics, let's use Trump for an example, let's say someone supports him, but not all he does and still voted for him, but still cares for others and has compassion for others, and doesn't agree with everything the other side says, does that make it right for others to ridicule? No, it doesn't.


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Btw, right extremists gaslight, project, obstruct justice, and commit terroristic murders. Left extremists go homeless advocating for the abolishment of social and economic inequity.


That is bullshit. There are crazy people on both sides. Every demographic has bad apples. Stupidity is not only within one group of people.


...although stupidity is more common on the left.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> That is bullshit. There are crazy people on both sides. Every demographic has bad apples. Stupidity is not only within one group of people.
> 
> 
> ...although stupidity is more common on the left.



Exactly, it's not a fair assumption IMO  Extremism is bad regardless of what side of the spectrum it's on.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I've yet to see that on any forum, to be perfectly blunt, here, IGN, Facebook, civil constructive political debates are rare. Anyone who dares support one side, like say Republican views, I've always seen people who are Democrats ridicule and vilify them for not believing the same views. It's asinine and unnecessarily toxic, and that alone has permanently ruined any and all political discussion. It's going to take a miracle to change my mind on that. I'm just being honest on why I try to avoid such discussions, no matter what I say or express, the other side will say I'm wrong, I'm blinded, or that I have to believe a certain way. Why can't people agree to disagree and move on civilly. Is that so much to ask?


I'm going to make an assumption and claim you only see what you want to see, whether you realize it or not. I've seen plenty of civil discussion on this site alone, and yes, there is a lot of political noise and insult. I won't debate against that, but if that's all we feed into and focus on, then discussion will die, with any social progress or unity with it. Continue to see the value in discussion, and ignore the hate. We are now in an age of misinformation, it takes more scrutiny and patience to maintain a constructive, civil discussion but we must not let discussion die. We are all humans living in this unforgiving world, let us not give into hate and have it control our discussions and interactions. We are one.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I'm going to make an assumption and claim you only see what you want to see, whether you realize it or not. I've seen plenty of civil discussion on this site alone, and yes, there is a lot of political noise and insult. I won't debate against that, but if that's all we feed into and focus on, then discussion will die, with any social progress or unity with it. Continue to see the value in discussion, and ignore the hate. We are now in an age of misinformation, it takes more scrutiny and patience to maintain a constructive, civil discussion but we must not let discussion die. We are all humans living in this unforgiving world, let us not give into hate and have it control our discussions and interactions. We are one.



IDK maybe it's hard for me to see the good in political discussions, maybe I am way too cynical like I said before, not entirely sure. That said, I have certain views that are more, well, right-oriented than left-oriented and that alone, makes me a target for vilification and ridicule, does it not?  I guess what I'm saying is, is it possible to have right-oriented beliefs and still not paint a bulls-eye on the back of my head? I don't hate anyone on either side of the spectrum, and I've never gone after people who don't believe what I believe, does that give them the right to do the opposite to me?


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> That is bullshit. There are crazy people on both sides. Every demographic has bad apples. Stupidity is not only within one group of people.


I do agree, there are shitty extremists on all sides of every topic.


> ...although stupidity is more common on the left.


We get it, you are right leaning. But "The group that doesn't agree with me is stupid" hardly conveys why your beliefs as such, nor would it convince opposition to agree with you.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I do agree, there are shitty extremists on all sides of every topic.
> 
> We get it, you are right leaning. But "The group that doesn't agree with me is stupid" hardly conveys why your beliefs as such, nor would it convince opposition to agree with you.



Is it actually possible for one to have right-oriented beliefs without everyone on the left treating you like subhuman trash? Trying to find a way to express those without ridicule is like trying to find the Fountain of Youth.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> IDK maybe it's hard for me to see the good in political discussions, maybe I am way too cynical like I said before, not entirely sure. That said, I have certain views that are more, well, right-oriented than left-oriented and that alone, makes me a target for vilification and ridicule, does it not?  I guess what I'm saying is, is it possible to have right-oriented beliefs and still not paint a bulls-eye on the back of my head? I don't hate anyone on either side of the spectrum, and I've never gone after people who don't believe what I believe, does that give them the right to do the opposite to me?


No, you are perfectly fine believing what you believe and don't deserve unwarranted negative attention, nor should anyone else, as long as you don't spread harmful ideas like murder and treat others with respect as well.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> No, you are perfectly fine believing what you believe and don't deserve unwarranted negative attention, nor should anyone else, as long as you don't spread harmful ideas like murder and treat others with respect as well.


I certainly hope so, but I admit, I don't think before I say as much as I should *sigh* c'est la vie


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I've yet to see that on any forum, to be perfectly blunt, here, IGN, Facebook, civil constructive political debates are rare.


Shockingly, FunnyJunk can be a great site for political discussions. Although it is usually just full of trolls and stupid punks kids, I have had more civil discussions with opposing views on FunnyJunk than on any other site.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> Shockingly, FunnyJunk can be a great site for political discussions. Although it is usually just full of trolls and stupid punks kids, I have had more civil discussions with opposing views on FunnyJunk than on any other site.



I find that hard to believe, but I do take your word for it


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 11, 2019)

Open borders would be fine if it wasn't for welfare.


----------



## Panzerfaust (Mar 11, 2019)

two pages filled with anything but an answer to OPs question. 

btw.: is there a universal definition to "extremist"? according to my degenerated government I (and countless of citizens) would be classified as such, because we are against their agenda.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

It is in everyones interest to be for open borders, if they are done right. 

Basically because they are a win/win for everyone involved.

And by open borders you usually mean for members of a customs union. Not for everyone.

There are no borders that are open for everyone. (Well, there are, within customs unions, but people from outside then would have to go through at least one checkpoint.).

If you only mean for wares and goods, yes - there open borders are in everyones interest as well, because it makes markets bigger and reduces costs.

That then is dependant on having trade deals in place (and not terrifs or taxes).

Thats a question that has a pretty definite answer to it, once you've worked out all the different instances of what "open borders" means.

It doesnt mean, that everyone can walz in. It never does. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You usually dont see open borders between states (apart from economic and political unions such as the EU), because states usually want to watch over their own economies.

There are instances though (like in europe), where you need goods from other parts of europe (smaller countries) so ofter, that you get thinking.

Also - people from the outside complain, that they have to deal with 15 different product savety specs, and that makes the good more expensive, ... so - if as Europe you want to play in the big leagues. You have to make something like the EU. At least something along those lines - see:

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/history-eu-customs-union_en

If you are britain, maybe you think you dont need it. But then you fight for access to the common market claws out for more than two years anyhow... So... It benefits everyone involved.

Now as to how far other countries need to be helped within a common market, or a common currency union, those are still matters of political discussion within the EU.

If you hear a political party lobbying for exiting the EU they never mean the common market btw.  Usually. They never mean the entire phrase at all to be honest.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> Open borders would be fine if it wasn't for welfare.


I prefer universal basic income to welfare, myself. Boosts economy and helps prevent the suffering of poverty, and is allocated for citizens. Then again, I don't believe illegal immigrants qualify for welfare, but I'm not 100% certain. I know that I had to jump through tons of hoops, as a citizen, to prove my citizenship and lack of stable income to qualify for welfare. Damn am I thankful, too. I won't starve until I get a job. Plus, I'm not saving money so everything I get is pumped right back into the economy instead of being horded.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I prefer universal basic income to welfare, myself. Boosts economy and helps prevent the suffering of poverty, and is allocated for citizens. Then again, I don't believe illegal immigrants qualify for welfare, but I'm not 100% certain. I know that I had to jump through tons of hoops, as a citizen, to prove my citizenship and lack of stable income to qualify for welfare. Damn am I thankful, too. I won't starve until I get a job. Plus, I'm not saving money so everything I get is pumped right back into the economy instead of being horded.



I was against UBI because it is basically welfare in everything but name. However, I have changed my mind a bit due to learning more and more about A.I. When A.I. takes over 50% of all jobs in the next 20 years or so we will need some kind of UBI in order to prevent a civil revolution.


----------



## JaapDaniels (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I prefer universal basic income to welfare, myself. Boosts economy and helps prevent the suffering of poverty, and is allocated for citizens. Then again, I don't believe illegal immigrants qualify for welfare, but I'm not 100% certain. I know that I had to jump through tons of hoops, as a citizen, to prove my citizenship and lack of stable income to qualify for welfare. Damn am I thankful, too. I won't starve until I get a job. Plus, I'm not saving money so everything I get is pumped right back into the economy instead of being horded.


that will not ever work to boost economy, simply because your economy internal is based on min. and max. income. the cost price of an egg for example will increase in moments when minimum income increases.
if you get free money this simple makes you poorer, since money is easier to getit's worth less.
this goes even worse when you wanna buy currencies of other countries.
so buying products from outside your country will cost you even more, even more then you get for extra income.
so free money makes poor people.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> I was against UBI because it is basically welfare in everything but name. However, I have changed my mind a bit due to learning more and more about A.I. When A.I. takes over 50% of all jobs in the next 20 years or so we will need some kind of UBI in order to prevent a civil revolution.


Plus, the less poverty affects citizens, the less crime and suffering will occur. Additionally, greater education creates a more powerful generation capable of tackling global issues and solving problems, rising above political strife and abating authoritarian grabs of power. To add, more capable workers come about from improved education, which is going to be necessary to operate the upcoming technological society which is already exponentially growing.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> I prefer universal basic income to welfare, myself. Boosts economy and helps prevent the suffering of poverty, and is allocated for citizens.


I quote here:

"I think that universal basic income by itself is a terrible idea. I think that enhanced with conditions and qualifications it may be something worth doing. Essentially we are talking about taking care of the 40% of people [spoken in context of an AI and automation centered conference] so they dont have to worry about food on the table and shelter, and also training them, so they can move onto the next step. So as long as those are the policies being applied, whether it is through encouraging corporations to do training, weither it is through changing the mix at vocational schools, whether it is the tax credit given only when people have done work improving themselves towards a job that is not displaceable by AI, then I think that its a good thing.

If you just give money away, then I think the main issue is, that people may fall into addiction or depression, and further more I think, that the biggest issue is not just the loss of income, but the loss of identity, because many people associate their worth with the jobs they have."

src is Kai Fu Lee in this video: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnZ7gr-xHSQ

And I entirely agree.

UBI models are usually set up to be whole set replacements for social programs as well ("you save money, by not needing the administration there any more"). And as a result you really are in danger of leaving people "on their own" - with a little money in their pockets. In a society that will still - predominantly - define peoples worths by the jobs they are holding. Which is a bad idea.

You basically remove a safety net (regular check ins, social workers, orientation...) - for a plus in dignity. The safety net is more important.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

JaapDaniels said:


> that will not ever work to boost economy, simply because your economy internal is based on min. and max. income. the cost price of an egg for example will increase in moments when minimum income increases.
> if you get free money this simple makes you poorer, since money is easier to getit's worth less.
> this goes even worse when you wanna buy currencies of other countries.
> so buying products from outside your country will cost you even more, even more then you get for extra income.
> so free money makes poor people.


Ah, you are speaking of the problem of inflation, one of the fundamental effects of capitalism. I would argue that the true cause of inflation is not the availability of spending power in the lower economic brackets, but rather, due to the amassing and hording of wealth at the top, requiring additional money to be created for the bottom to be able to live. Additional money (new money, not re-appropriated money or welfare) diminishes the spending power of the money, causing less economic purchasing, which stagnated economic growth, fueling further inflation. Welfare is not "free money", there is no such thing, it is value re-appropriated via taxes, of which is makes sense to extract more from higher brackets as they are past the threshold of poverty and even comfortable living, but I digress. Welfare isn't a perfect solution, but until we solve poverty, it's the solution I dislike the least. If welfare keeps up with inflation, people won't starve, suffer, and pass on poverty to future generations. Remember, this is capitalism by design, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Remember, this is capitalism by design, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


Are you sure?  I dont get the design part. Reappropriation is supposed to be in place alongside it, no? 

JaapDaniels is correct, in as much as cost of basic living will rise faster than inflation proper. I think. 

Thinking about how you could stop that. Seems difficult.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Plus, the less poverty affects citizens, the less crime and suffering will occur. Additionally, greater education creates a more powerful generation capable of tackling global issues and solving problems, rising above political strife and abating authoritarian grabs of power. To add, more capable workers come about from improved education, which is going to be necessary to operate the upcoming technological society which is already exponentially growing.



Well, I partly agree and disagree with this.

Yes, less poverty affecting citizens does mean less crime. However, I'm speaking UBI for people who are too lazy/stupid to learn the skills needed for the jobs of the future. People make the mistake that education can fix everything and bring a whole family out of poverty but that isn't true. You have to have a combo of a good IQ and the work ethic needed. You can give an education to a retard but they are still a retard.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

Work ethic is motivation - pretty much solely.

Qualification is the only way out of poverty. Education is part of that.

IQ, dumb, lazy, .. we can pretty much leave out of it entirely.

Look at Trump for gods sake...  It usually doesnt matter that much. Opportunity, economic development, social scene and so on are more important.

Dumb people get rich. All the time.  Motivated, high work ethic people loose jobs. All the time. There has to be zero correlation (one has nothing to do with the other) at this point... 

What happens rather, is that successful people get praised by everyone around them (social mechanism of people wanting to make friends) -- then they start to believe, that they are something special, and look at certain character traits to rectify that.

Look I've had high work ethik. Look I've had strong business acumen, look - I have superior intelligence.

Usually its nothing of the above.

But then you have them telling that to everyone - and people are picking it up, because that person must know, because they are successful...

(...writes book "The art of the deal"

People start buying his steaks.  )


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> I quote here:If you just give money away, then I think the main issue is, that people may fall into addiction or depression, and further more I think, that the biggest issue is not just the loss of income, but the loss of identity, because many people associate their worth with the jobs they have."


This is a weak argument without much evidence. There simply hasn't been enough instances of a recorded society in human history, as of yet, that has enacted a UBI long enough, nor has there been enough instances of such society to extract reliable data from and come to solid conclusions regarding the positives and negatives. Aside from the depression-inclined, depression as he refers results from needs of humans not being met, which lack of money is a major source of. People do not just become depressed by not having to be forced to work, forced to do something they don't necessarily want to. If people didn't have to worry about providing for themselves, they would become productive by other means, means that would benefit them greatly. Humans are innately productive, we do what we want to do. We make things, we create. We discuss. We philosophize. We write and express. Have you tried just doing nothing? Like staring at a wall? It is difficult. Some misguided individuals may turn to harmful addictions, but this can be combated by providing rehabilitation and behavioral cognitive therapy, in addition to other medical services.

Also, on the basis of personal experience I wholeheartedly disagree that welfare in general is bad for a functioning, content society. I, myself, fell into great depression, and struggle with bouts of suicidal ideation, in large part to the poverty I have faced my entire life and continue to face. The few times I earned enough money to start climbing out of the poverty hole, my mood vastly improved. Most of my family, and many friends fell into addiction. Not simply just because, but because they started drug use to treat their mental and physical health issues that they couldn't afford to fix (e.g. depression, ptsd, chronic pain), due to poverty. Of the ones that didn't die from drug use, alcoholism, or other self-destructive behaviors, they were able to go to rehab or receive mental health services and became clean, productive citizens. Due to the welfare I have recently qualified for, my life has dramatically improved. My mental and physical health are both being treated, and I am now able to focus on bettering myself for the job market. I have been starting to get more interviews and I hope to not be on welfare for much longer, landing a position that would provide me basic needs. The process to qualify for that welfare, however, was strenuous and extremely difficult, especially for having been in a mental state where I was incapable of taking care of myself. I believe the process of checking for qualification should be quicker and easier. I also believe UBI would help expedite this process.

My biggest fear for UBI, is that the wealthy powers that be would find a way to induce flaws, then point out those flaws and label the system "impossible" and "harmful", preventing any further social and economical progress.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Mar 11, 2019)

the whole UBI thing is kinda doomed to fail unless we somehow develop infinite resources, if there isn't enough resources to go around no matter how much money you make all you do is move the "poor" level in number only, if everyone has $1,000,000 suddenly everything will adjust to meet the market value, and bread will cost $10,000, money is not the solution resources are, if you wanted to improve peoples lives you would focus on resource creation not money, if you could create unlimited food and energy everyone would be able to exist, that said i feel that kind of future would no doubt cause a lot of depression and absurd behaviour as people struggle to find any purposeful meaning in their life


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 11, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> the whole UBI thing is kinda doomed to fail unless we somehow develop infinite resources, if there isn't enough resources to go around no matter how much money you make all you do is move the "poor" level in number only, if everyone has $1,000,000 suddenly everything will adjust to meet the market value, and bread will cost $10,000, money is not the solution resources are, if you wanted to improve peoples lives you would focus on resource creation not money, if you could create unlimited food and energy everyone would be able to exist, that said i feel that kind of future would no doubt cause a lot of depression and absurd behaviour as people struggle to find any purposeful meaning in their life


There are plenty of resources to support the human population. The problem is a VERY small group of them are hording the world's majority of resources using a system that allows them to do such behind the veil of law and order.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> This is a weak argument without much evidence. There simply hasn't been enough instances of a recorded society in human history, as of yet, that has enacted a UBI long enough, nor has there been enough instances of such society to extract reliable data from and come to solid conclusions regarding the positives and negatives.


I dont disagree. If societal values change as a whole - and all of a sudden you have "self help" groups forming, or "self empowerment" (whatever you want to call them). But then those wouldnt catch close to all cases.

But as long as you are talking about 40% of people on UBI, and the rest on normal job trajectories...

Eh... societal change is hard. 

You have to find something for the people that really start to live without perspectives and start to reduce social interaction.

There are documentaries out there about the "blood plasma donation industry" that sets up shop in the US (where it can run commercially) in poor parts of town, in cities, that are on an economic down trend - and the social studies around people that stock up their income there, had me thinking "they need assistance - not money".

So thats the main point here.

There is also the famous Marienthal study ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lazarsfeld ) that points in a similar direction.

(german title: Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal)
(english title: _Marienthal: the sociography of an unemployed community_ )


----------



## gamesquest1 (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> There are plenty of resources to support the human population. The problem is a VERY small group of them are hording the world's majority of resources using a system that allows them to do such behind the veil of law and order.


but again, people "do" stuff to benefit themselves, this is just human nature and the reason all communistic societies fail, you cannot defeat human nature no matter how many gulags and death camps you erect, nobody wants to work their arses off to just scrape by, the only way to bypass this reality is that resource levels are so vast and easy to achieve that people cannot be controlled by corporations/governments etc


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> but you also have to keep everyone roughly at the same economic "competitiveness" level, because if you do not - one state would start to undercut the other, or one state would want to refuse to payback state loans (if they see the system as unfair) - and then the system gets unstable.



Actually, the free market tends to inherently cause States to be "roughly" at the same economic competitiveness level...except not really.  States do constantly try to undercut other ones, but it's not enough to really shift the economic power base of the Northeast or West coast.  There even was a whole "outsource to the midwest" that AFAIK has basically gone nowhere.  This is part of why money is shuffled around by the federal government to maintain stability, especially in funding enough infrastructure to at least offer the opportunity for economic development.  It's of course, also used to provide the means to ship raw goods made in the interior to the exterior or around for production into finished goods.

Basically, everything I've seen people complain about open borders within the EU and all the benefits are precisely the sort of stuff you read about in the 1800s in the US.  And the UK sounds like a California, especially with the whole No Deal Brexit mess.  At least, so far, California has been wise enough to not actually try to leave.



IncredulousP said:


> I would argue that the true cause of inflation is not the availability of spending power in the lower economic brackets, but rather, due to the amassing and hording of wealth at the top, requiring additional money to be created for the bottom to be able to live.



The true cause of inflation is the federal reserve manipulating the interest rates banks charge to manipulate the money supply.  In theory raising minimum wages will indirectly raise the money supply, but I'm not sure that's true given now days most people are paid by direct deposit and pay cashless.  So, the real loose cash may or may not increase much as a result of a small minimum wage increase.  Conversely, those at the top who are receiving compounding wealth through investments are likely not driving much in the wage of inflation because meaningfully most of their wealth is shuffling around various accounts between various companies.

Of course, it's a lot more complicated than the above in practice.  Globalization pushes most everyone to buy from external sources--aka China, et al--which both draws money out of the country and undercuts local development.  Yet, the same lower prices allow for assembly of goods to be sold locally or simply for local retailers--service business jobs are 80% of the workforce--to charge a higher premium allowing them to leverage that increased income to expand.  So, this tends to lead to overall better outcomes for everyone involved--assuming what you buy doesn't burn your house down. :/


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

This is the most disingenuous way of phrasing this question possible.  It's like asking, "why are Republicans in favor of tear gassing women and children and then locking those children in cages?"  Although the difference is that shit is actually happening, and nobody is actually in favor of an open border.  We just don't want 25 billion of our taxes wasted for a useless fucking wall, when smarter individuals know that the border could be completely secured for less than 1 billion.

The bottom line is that this is simply another way for Trump to scam money from the American taxpayers.  If the wall ever actually does get built, it'll be built on the cheap, and people will be able to cut through it with a spoon.  The rest of the money will end up in the Trump organization bank account.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Ah, you are speaking of the problem of inflation, one of the fundamental effects of capitalism. I would argue that the true cause of inflation is not the availability of spending power in the lower economic brackets, but rather, due to the amassing and hording of wealth at the top, requiring additional money to be created for the bottom to be able to live. Additional money (new money, not re-appropriated money or welfare) diminishes the spending power of the money, causing less economic purchasing, which stagnated economic growth, fueling further inflation. Welfare is not "free money", there is no such thing, it is value re-appropriated via taxes, of which is makes sense to extract more from higher brackets as they are past the threshold of poverty and even comfortable living, but I digress. Welfare isn't a perfect solution, but until we solve poverty, it's the solution I dislike the least. If welfare keeps up with inflation, people won't starve, suffer, and pass on poverty to future generations. Remember, this is capitalism by design, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


I don’t know if higher taxes are a good thing. There is a recent article and New York is close to bankruptcy.

Experts say it’s due to high taxes and over spending. Basically social programs they can’t afford and high taxes scaring away business owners to different states and countries so there is less tax revenue coming in. New York has the 2nd highest taxes on the rich in the country. It’s pretty much what economists have predicted will happen. One recession and they are done for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ity-BANKRUPT-recession-hits-experts-warn.html


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t know if higher taxes are a good thing. There is a recent article and New York is close to bankruptcy.
> 
> Experts say it’s due to high taxes and over spending. Basically social programs they can’t afford and high taxes scaring away business owners to different states and countries so there is less tax revenue coming in. New York has the 2nd highest taxes on the rich in the country. It’s pretty much what economists have predicted will happen. One recession and they are done for.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ity-BANKRUPT-recession-hits-experts-warn.html


Daily Mail is a tabloid, not really worth putting stock into their opinions.  Besides, there are a lot of red states already extremely deep in debt, simply hitting zero wouldn't mean much of anything for New York given the amount of money they pour back into the economy.


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

@kuwanger (the part thats in response to me): Interesting and, yes - but there is also the part that, if you start pitching europeans the "United States of Europe" model (just by name) right now, they'll kill you with pitchforks. 

Me included. 

Such is the animosity over what we might lose (as more affluent countries) in return. I mean we look at the US and see the model of a two party system ("four more years" and "change"), a constant state of dumbing down on issues.

(Have you seen even the democratic candidates for precidency? "I'd be best, because I feel with them people!?")

Although we have that going on here as well. Almost no accountability of representation, the selling of national dreams, gerrymandering, locked congresses, almost open election fraud (financing), ... your freaking media, atm...

And you contrast that with france, where if the president raises their taxes on gas a little too high, they burn down Paris... and you somewhat start to question if the two models are compatible... 

You also have the language barrier, wich is huge - because for european elections, we are only focused on our regional candidates, not on overall fraction policy at the EU level. The presumed heads of EU parliament take trips around different countries, but thats it.

You can vote a party into the EU parliement currently that presents you one stance as what they are for as "domestic policy", and then they might be part of a fraction at the EU parliament level, where they are holding the entire contrary position - and you usually know nothing about it.

Attempts to make that more transparent with european media in english language have failed spectacularly...


Then I was at a "promising cultural and political young prospects" event (kind of EU centered) last summer, and it was mainly an introduction to the power of lobbying and facebook bubbles.

I was awestruck, when presented with an argument for political correctness, because "finally it allows us to speak openly".

Meaning, I now have a very distinct image - when thinking of the concept of "removed from the factual realities on the ground"...

Its hard. And it almost seems like that the scope of political messaging has to dumb down, to really be accepted by people regardless of regionality, life experiences, economic state of a region....

And not even I'm sure if I like that.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> Such is the animosity over what we might lose (as more affluent countries) in return. I mean we look at the us and see the model of a two party system ("four more years" and "change"), a constant state of dumbing down on issues.



For the former, that's sadly just a property of how the country formed:  two parties formed around radically opposing views--federalist and anti-federalists--and short of a few large third parties that eventually split/merged, the song has been mostly the same.  As for dumbing down on issues?  See the former:  making everything binary is how things devolve when you don't have much in the way of options.  My point is, the baggage of being a United States doesn't inherently have to work out the way the USA did.



notimp said:


> You also have the language barrier, wich is huge - because for european elections, we are only focused on our regional candidates, not on overall fraction policy at the EU level. The presumed heads of EU parliament take trips around different countries, but thats it.



There's that too in the US even without the language barrier:  Republicans in California and Florida are radically different and have to sell themselves to the people in different ways.  I'd tend to argue the above two party system, though, tends to disenfranchise a lot of people at the local or national level, especially when supporters from either side attack you for daring to have and express an opinion.  I don't think this is exclusive to really anywhere:  it only takes a few people to raise a lot of hell.



notimp said:


> I was awestruck, when presented with an argument for political correctness, because "finally it allows us to speak openly".



Which speaks something about having a very binary view about free speech...  And then we have the (near) binary view about borders.  At least, the dumbed down version doesn't talk about quotas from countries, the standards for immigration, the requirements for citizenship, etc.  There's just mostly handwaving that yes, technically very few people are for completely closed borders to people.  The whole "11 million illegal immigrants" ignores "that came here over the last 40+ (or whatever) years".  There's just this sort of expectation that people who care will be knowledgeable about the subject not only in how we're at this point but also that the soundbites only convey a general idea of the general theme of the general position of one group vs what the other presumably disagrees with*.

* Look no further than the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as anti-Semitic by denouncing anti-Semitism..  So, Democrats have to virtue signal they're not anti-Semitic by denouncing anti-Semitism.  Fun stuff.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Daily Mail is a tabloid, not really worth putting stock into their opinions.  Besides, there are a lot of red states already extremely deep in debt, simply hitting zero wouldn't mean much of anything for New York given the amount of money they pour back into the economy.


This is about New York not other states.
You’re calling them fake news?

Peter C. Earle is the Economist the Daily Mail is quoting. https://www.aier.org/staff/peter-c-earle

This guy has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Routers, NPR. Do you trust this guy?


----------



## notimp (Mar 11, 2019)

Not awestruck, gobsmacked.. but you got the point..


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is about New York not other states.
> You’re calling them fake news?


It's relevant because New York pays so much in taxes that they help prop up several poorer red states on their own.

Again, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, I shouldn't have to say more than that.  The people they quote might sometimes be legit, but that doesn't mean the story itself is legit.  If there is some crisis going on in New York now, there's no doubt it is a result of Trump's tax cut on the rich and tax increase on the poor.


----------



## bennyman123abc (Mar 11, 2019)

Open borders removes the need for importation, and importation tax, thus eliminating one of an economy's key factors to continue running.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> For the former, that's sadly just a property of how the country formed:  two parties formed around radically opposing views--federalist and anti-federalists--and short of a few large third parties that eventually split/merged, the song has been mostly the same.  As for dumbing down on issues?  See the former:  making everything binary is how things devolve when you don't have much in the way of options.  My point is, the baggage of being a United States doesn't inherently have to work out the way the USA did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are painting the far left as anti semetic, from the stuff Rashida Tlaib and others on her side are doing or following.

She follows anti Semitic things on instagram. And that’s what they are using against her. It seems like a retaliation and self defense, if you call us the right anti Semitic and racist then we will call you anti Semitic from the stuff you do. And arguments boils down to that in right vs left debates now. Both sides have racists.

https://theresurgent.com/2019/03/09/rashida-tlaib-follows-viciously-anti-semitic-instagram-account/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> It's relevant because New York pays so much in taxes that they help prop up several poorer red states on their own.
> 
> Again, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, I shouldn't have to say more than that.  The people they quote might sometimes be legit, but that doesn't mean the story itself is legit.  If there is some crisis going on in New York now, there's no doubt it is a result of Trump's tax cut on the rich and tax increase on the poor.


Ocasio Cortez screwed up big time on the Amazon deal in New York. She lead the protest against them and lost lots of tax revenue which could have help the state, she thought tax cuts is actual money the state had and was giving to Amazon, surprising that she has a degree in economics, and in recent articles she’s starting to realize she screwed up.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Ocasio Cortez screwed up big time on the Amazon deal in New York. She lead the protest against them and lost lots of tax revenue which could have help the state, she thought tax cuts is actual money the state had and was giving to Amazon, surprising that she has a degree in economics, and in recent articles she’s starting to realize she screwed up.


What are you talking about?  Amazon was looking to siphon subsidies from whichever state they headquartered in, and they paid zero in taxes last year.  Between that and the shit working conditions, they're a net drain on resources.  It's just like a city going deep in to debt to open a massive new sports stadium.  They all say it'll pay for itself eventually, but that never happens.

Besides, New York is not lacking in available employment.  If Amazon actually cared about this country, they'd headquarter in North Carolina or Wyoming.  Places with plenty of space and sparse job markets.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are painting the far left as anti semetic, from the stuff Rashida Tlaib and others in her side are doing or following.



Except "the far left" != Democratic Party any more than "the far right" == Republicans.  So, no, the point is to condemn the Democrats for not condemning the few (a couple) far left just like the Republicans had to condemn the few (a couple) far right they have.  One could argue this reasonable tit for tat, I guess, but it's pretty absurd to argue the Democrats are anti-Semitic when they're the ones being constantly hounded because they seem to go overboard on taking any possible offense at words used to conjecture anti-Semitism/anti-gay/anti-black/anti-woman was intended.



SG854 said:


> She follows anti Semitic things in instagram. And that’s what they are using against her. It seems like a retaliation and self defense, if you call us anti Semitic then we will call you anti Semitic. And arguments boils down to that in debates.



Reading that is quite horrible, although it sounds like the issue is she followed a user who themselves have posted hateful things.  Should she, if she disagrees, remove that person from her list?  Yes.  Does the fact that one person you follow says horrible things automatically make you an anti-Semite?  Or that you get funding from people who are anti-Semitic?  By the same logic if I replace "anti-Semite" with "racist" would that still hold?  The point isn't that I believe Rashida Tlaib isn't anti-Semitic.  It's that the standards you're using to decide this have to be consistent.

As for retaliation and self-defense, it sounds like Tlaib was saying that Democrats and Republicans alike are Islamophobic, not anti-Semitic.  So, who was making the claim that Republicans were anti-Semitic?  Is it self-defense to not refute the claim against you but claim someone else is equally bad with another religion/ethnicity?  Is the issue that we care about only some groups and not others?  Is the outrage that a Muslim said horrible things, not a white guy?  Or was it because it was in Congress and not at the State level?  I tend to think it's the last part.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What are you talking about?  Amazon was looking to siphon subsidies from whichever state they headquartered in, and they paid zero in taxes last year.  Between that and the shit working conditions, they're a net drain on resources.  It's just like a city going deep in to debt to open a massive new sports stadium.  They all say it'll pay for itself eventually, but that never happens.


They had a chance of bringing in 27 billion in tax revenue. Cortez kept on tweeting that the state should keep the 3 billion and instead use that on infrustrcture. What she didn’t realize is there is no 3 billion to spend. A tax break is a discount. 

If you generate 30 billion you only have to pay 27. You don’t buy a $60 video game see its $10 dollars off and think you only pay $50 and the store gives you $10 for purchasing a game, that’s not how discounts work. She though the city was giving them 3 billion to come to New York. They have no 3 billion.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They had a chance of bringing in 27 billion in tax revenue.


"A chance."  What the hell does that mean?  You also have a "chance" of becoming a millionaire through scratch tickets.  You base your assumptions off of past experience, not chance, and as I said, Amazon paid $0 in taxes last year.  That's exactly how much they'll pay every year until we get a president who isn't a bitchboy willing to bend over backwards for megacorps.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Except "the far left" != Democratic Party any more than "the far right" == Republicans.  So, no, the point is to condemn the Democrats for not condemning the few (a couple) far left just like the Republicans had to condemn the few (a couple) far right they have.  One could argue this reasonable tit for tat, I guess, but it's pretty absurd to argue the Democrats are anti-Semitic when they're the ones being constantly hounded because they seem to go overboard on taking any possible offense at words used to conjecture anti-Semitism/anti-gay/anti-black/anti-woman was intended.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Democratic is extremely fractured right now, from moderates to far left. It would make sense for a few people in that party to be racists since it has many different groups. Have you heared about the femenists that say men will never be women or vice versa. There is a movement coming up that is against the 80+ genders, so they all don’t fit in they category of social justice warriors. Not all are intersectionalist.

Whether it’s anti Semitisim or anti white. That’s how they are seen as racists. Tlaib from her past comments it’s doesnt seem like the Instagram is a mistake. She does seem like she really is anti Semitic.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> "A chance."  What the hell does that mean?  You also have a "chance" of becoming a millionaire through scratch tickets.  You base your assumptions off of past experience, not chance, and as I said, Amazon paid $0 in taxes last year.  That's exactly how much they'll pay every year until we get a president who isn't a bitchboy willing to bend over backwards for megacorps.


A chance meaning they didn’t get to do this because Cortez led protesters against them. So they weren’t givin the chance to bring that revenue in, since they were protested away. The 27 billion was expected to happen if they came to New York. They weren’t going to pay zero taxes, that’s not part of the deal.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> A chance meaning they didn’t get to do this because Cortez led protesters against them. So they weren’t givin the chance to bring that revenue in, since they were protested away. The 27 billion was expected to happen if they came to New York.


I'm telling you right now that she ultimately saved the state money.  Amazon is a drain everywhere else they're headquartered, and there's zero indication that New York would've been any different.



SG854 said:


> Tlaib from her past comments it’s doesnt seem like the Instagram is a mistake. She does seem like she really is anti Semitic.


Gimme a break.  Even Bernie defended Omar's comments, and it's obvious she stepped on a hot-button issue here.  Bunch of spineless Republicans and "business" Dems accepting assloads of cash from Israeli lobbyists, while Netanyahu is allowed to be as corrupt and murderous as he wishes.  It's not anti-Semitic to discuss conflicts of interest with a government that has been using the US as their own personal dogs of war for decades.

Netanyahu is no better than Mohammad Bin Salman, they're both terrorists and extremists.  Only makes sense that they'd both be best buddies with Trump.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Democratic is extremely fractured right now, from moderates to far left.



The party as a whole is and has been for quite a long while.  But those who are elected to Congress are rarely far left or far right--by US standards of course.



SG854 said:


> It would make sense for a few people in that party to be racists since it has many different groups.



The only group that I've seen any consistent negative racism/sexism by Democrats is against white, male privilege and the presumption that such exists.  So, yes, one could go as far as calling that racism--institutional racism, even.  But it's never been directed towards Jews or Muslims.  Anti-Catholic?  Possibly at least to the degree that Catholic doctrine conflicts with ideas about women rights.  And on this issue, I do take issue in that this could be construed as dual loyalty when in reality I believe many Catholics, indoctrinated just like Protestants, still end up as adults choosing their own path and beliefs.  It's not as simple as arguing all Catholics are alike.



SG854 said:


> Have you heared about the femenists that say men will never be women or vice versa. There is a movement coming up that is against the 80+ genders, so they all don’t fit in they category of social justice warriors. Not all are intersectionalist.



No doubt.  There's plenty of feminists who are misandrist, misogynist, or maybe just misanthropist.  Definitely, plenty seek to use hatred of groups for their own power, not unity against those seeking power.  The point is, by no means would I call Democrats angels.  I definitely disagree strongly with those who preach hate.  If Tlaib is one of those people, she should be censured in Congress.  My point, though, is of all the many sins the Democratic Party is guilty of, anti-Semitism doesn't seem one of them.  That one of its members happens may be?  Well, that's reason to condemn that member, not conflate that one member as the party.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Gimme a break.  Even Bernie defended Omar's comments, and it's obvious she stepped on a hot-button issue here.  Bunch of spineless Republicans and "business" Dems accepting assloads of cash from Israeli lobbyists, while Netanyahu is allowed to be as corrupt and murderous as he wishes.  It's not anti-Semitic to discuss conflicts of interest with a government that has been using the US as their own personal dogs of war for decades.
> 
> Netanyahu is no better than Mohammad Bin Salman, they're both terrorists and extremists.  Only makes sense that they'd both be best buddies with Trump.


 I wasn’t talking about Mohammad. I was talking about Tlaib.

The Rat with the Star of David saying “the real plague”. You don’t see that as anti Semitism? This account with this picture that Tlaib is following is not anti Semiticsm to you?










Xzi said:


> I'm telling you right now that she ultimately saved the state money.  Amazon is a drain everywhere else they're headquartered, and there's zero indication that New York would've been any different.



No to job creation and no to taxes because you think Amazon won’t pay taxes? How did you come to that conclusion. Amazon is a big company they bring lots of jobs and are a big contribution to the economy. Even Cortez is backtracking what she did now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ny.cur...19/2/14/18225029/amazon-hq2-nyc-deal-canceled


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I wasn’t talking about Mohammad. I was talking about Tlaib.


I know who you were talking about, I was also talking about her comments.  It's not surprising that the right-wing tried to take stuff out of context and use it against her, but the in-fighting among Democrats is ridiculous.  After Bernie defended her, that should've been the end of it, especially since he's the front-runner for 2020 right now.



SG854 said:


> The Rat with the Star of David saying “the real plague”. You don’t see that as anti Semitism? This account with this picture that Tlaib is following is not anti Semiticsm to you?


Are you just making shit up now?  Is Free.Palestine.1948 somehow supposed to be Omar?  I can't find a single thing verifying this.



SG854 said:


> No to job creation and no to taxes because you think Amazon won’t pay taxes? How did you come to that conclusion.


How many times I gotta repeat it?  *AMAZON.  PAID.  ZERO.  IN.  TAXES.  LAST.  YEAR.*  The better question is, what evidence do you have that proves this was going to change for New York?  You're just assuming.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Are you just making shit up now?  Is Free.Palestine.1948 somehow supposed to be Omar?  I can't find a single thing verifying this.


No I’m not. From following that account to her comments it isn’t a simple criticism of the Jewish Religion and certain aspects of the culture, which is fine. It’s straight up Anti Senitism depicting them as rats and calling them a plague.

https://theresurgent.com/2019/03/09/rashida-tlaib-follows-viciously-anti-semitic-instagram-account/



Xzi said:


> I know who you were talking about, I was also talking about her comments.  It's not surprising that the right-wing tried to take stuff out of context and use it against her, but the in-fighting among Democrats is ridiculous.  After Bernie defended her, that should've been the end of it, especially since he's the front-runner for 2020 right now.
> 
> 
> Are you just making shit up now?  Is Free.Palestine.1948 somehow supposed to be Omar?  I can't find a single thing verifying this.
> ...


I know they payed zero taxes last year. Trump has criticized them a lot for this.

Fine i’ll give you this one. I don’t know if they’ll pay taxes, and I have nothing to prove to you they will.

But jobs will be created. That’s a benefit. But according to Kyle Kulinsky opinion they won’t create jobs either, so? They’ll take welfare and destroy jobs. 

He is wrong though at the end, both the Left and Right are against Corporate welfare. The right doesn’t like welfare, and corporate welfare falls in that list. The left doesn’t like corporate welfare either, and it’s politicians being bought off by corporatists like corporate republicans and democrats.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

SG854 said:


> No I’m not. From following that account to her comments it isn’t a simple criticism of the Jewish Religion and certain aspects of the culture, which is fine. It’s straight up Anti Senitism depicting them as rats and calling them a plague.


If we're condemning people based on who they "follow/like" now, we have a long list of government officials to burn through before getting to Tlaib.  If she had been posting this stuff herself, then you'd have a valid criticism.



SG854 said:


> But jobs will be created. That’s a benefit.


Again, New York isn't hurting for job availability.  If they wanted to make a real difference they'd headquarter in a far less dense state.



SG854 said:


> He is wrong though at the end, both the Left and Right are against Corporate welfare.


Oh please.  Trump is the one who's responsible for Amazon and so many other corporations paying nothing in taxes last year.  He cut the corporate tax rate in *half*.  This is definitely one of the biggest corporate welfare giveaways in history.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 11, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If we're condemning people based on who they "follow/like" now, we have a long list of government officials to burn through before getting to Tlaib.  If she had been posting this stuff herself, then you'd have a valid criticism.
> 
> 
> Again, New York isn't hurting for job availability.  If they wanted to make a real difference they'd headquarter in a far less dense state.
> ...



It was still a dick move what AOC did to prevent Amazon from making a distribution center there, costing jobs, but that's for another topic. Her Green New Deal is a joke, and will cost 90 trillion dollars, but again, I digress.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 11, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> It was still a dick move what AOC did to prevent Amazon from making a distribution center there, costing jobs, but that's for another topic. Her Green New Deal is a joke, and will cost 90 trillion dollars, but again, I digress.


The Republican plan for dealing with climate change is nothing.  I'm really sick of this type of contrarianism for that reason; they need to bring some of their own ideas to the table or STFU.  Mass extinction is on the line, and not only for humans.  Meanwhile, more than half our government spends all day sucking off oil executives.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Republican plan for dealing with climate change is nothing.  I'm really sick of this type of contrarianism for that reason; they need to bring some of their own ideas to the table or STFU.  Mass extinction is on the line, and not only for humans.



And eliminating airplanes and costing the economy 90 trillion sure as fuck won't solve anything either. It's a bullshit idea, AOC can take her New Green Deal and shove it.  I agree that neither party has a good solution, but this isn't it. We don't want another New Deal, didn't seem to work well when FDR was in office.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Republican plan for dealing with climate change is nothing.  I'm really sick of this type of contrarianism for that reason; they need to bring some of their own ideas to the table or STFU.  Mass extinction is on the line, and not only for humans.  Meanwhile, more than half our government spends all day sucking off oil executives.


"Climate" change research gets plenty of funding. Sadly, it draws from funding normally allocated to important medical/technology research that aims to enhance our quality of life.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> And eliminating airplanes and costing the economy 90 trillion sure as shit won't solve anything either. It's a bullshit idea, AOC can take her New Green Deal and shove it.  I agree that neither party has a good solution, but this isn't it.


This isn't even accurate, and that's another problem entirely: the majority of critics don't even bother to read or understand what it is they're criticizing.

I also don't see how the budget should matter much here.  Yes, we'd save tens of trillions by just letting ourselves be wiped out by massive natural disasters in roughly ten years.  Does that make it a good idea?



0x3000027E said:


> "Climate" change research gets plenty of funding. Sadly, it draws from funding normally allocated to important medical/technology research that aims to enhance our quality of life.


I have no idea where you got that idea.  The research is in, 99% of scientists say climate change is real and man-made.  It's just that one of our political parties doesn't believe in science.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This isn't even accurate, and that's another problem entirely: the majority of critics don't even bother to read or understand what it is they're criticizing.
> 
> I also don't see how the budget should matter much here.  Yes, we'd save tens of trillions by just letting ourselves be wiped out by massive natural disasters in roughly ten years.  Does that make it a good idea?
> 
> ...



Is eliminating airplanes a good idea? I'd rather find a viable alternative fuel or energy source, but removing airplanes, trains, etc is a pretty dumbass idea for them to consider.

Hate to say it, but the Dems aren't exactly infallible or perfect either. That moron Nancy Pelosi claims that immigration laws violate the rights of illegals.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This isn't even accurate, and that's another problem entirely: the majority of critics don't even bother to read or understand what it is they're criticizing.
> 
> I also don't see how the budget should matter much here.  Yes, we'd save tens of trillion by just letting ourselves be wiped out by massive natural disasters.  Does that make it a good idea?
> 
> ...


Eh... scientific theories are, and will always be up for debate. 
The unfortunate matter, as you illustrate here, is that "climate" change became a political matter. Any serious discussion of the topic is usually obscured by some partisan political agenda.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Is eliminating airplanes a good idea? I'd rather find a viable alternative fuel or energy source, but removing airplanes, trains, etc is a pretty dumbass idea for them to consider.


That would be a dumb idea, that's why it isn't part of the Green New Deal.  It's just more nonsense for the alt-right to latch on to so they can keep pretending she has the same intelligence level as the president.



			
				Factcheck.org said:
			
		

> Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming made similar claims when she warned in a subcommittee hearing on Feb. 12 that the Green New Deal would “outlaw” plane travel, gasoline, cars and “probably the entire U.S. military.”
> 
> _The Green New Deal doesn’t call for any of these prohibitions._ But documents about the resolution released by Ocasio-Cortez’s office did address some of the issues raised by Trump and others.


https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/

What it says is context is that we likely _won't_ be able to rid ourselves of air travel in the next ten years, thus we'll have to offset those carbon emissions some other way.  So why mention getting rid of it at all?  Because we have no idea what technology will look like ten to twenty years from now.  We might have electric bullet trains, or hover cars, or even teleportation.  Who knows.  Lots of possibilities there for reducing carbon emissions during travel.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "A chance."  a president who isn't a bitchboy willing to bend over backwards for megacorps.


Current president a "bitchboy", yes.
However, you neglect to mention the former president, who granted a legislative monopoly to one of the most corrupt industries in the US (health insurance). Not to mention the ear marks _in the same bill_ that granted only a small handful of financial institutions the ability to offer loans of a particular type (student loans), _while being subsidized to keep interest rates low._
The corruption stems from both sides of the isle, to be sure.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 12, 2019)

With the looming threat of climate change, borders are genocidal as the global south, which already experiences the most poverty, are the first ones being affected by climate change (by the wealthiest people in the world who are contributing the most to climate change). Keeping black and brown people out western countries as the symptoms of climate change increase is simply unethical. 

People ought to have the right of free travel regardless. 

We didn't used to have borders and nation states and we can get back to a place where such constructs are not needed or utilized. Why should people in the first world experience a better quality of life simply because they were born within some arbitrary lines on a map?


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 12, 2019)

and what if a said country is run by a dictator who is hell bent on purging an entire religion or faction (hitler/sadaam husein to name two) what I'm saying is sometimes illegals do this to prevent getting murdered in their own countries terrorism will exist regardless and to put islam as the only real threat is dead wrong we have neo nazi's and anarchist already in the US just waiting for the right time to strike, you know the saying "the enemy from within"?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



0x3000027E said:


> Current president a "bitchboy", yes.
> However, you neglect to mention the former president, who granted a legislative monopoly to one of the most corrupt industries in the US (health insurance). Not to mention the ear marks _in the same bill_ that granted only a small handful of financial institutions the ability to offer loans of a particular type (student loans), _while being subsidized to keep interest rates low._
> The corruption stems from both sides of the isle, to be sure.


wrong it was the republican controlled congress during obama's years made the AHCA the way it was they wouldn't pass it til they got their greedy little hands on it,Obama wanted it differently more like canada's universal health care system that what it started out as the republicans love people not in the know like you for the votes


----------



## Captain_N (Mar 12, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> Well, I partly agree and disagree with this.
> 
> Yes, less poverty affecting citizens does mean less crime. However, I'm speaking UBI for people who are too lazy/stupid to learn the skills needed for the jobs of the future. People make the mistake that education can fix everything and bring a whole family out of poverty but that isn't true. You have to have a combo of a good IQ and the work ethic needed. You can give an education to a retard but they are still a retard.



Its not right to just give people that are stupid and/or lazy money. How is that fair? Plenty of people bust their asses daily to put food on the table. Why should they have to pay for those lazy asses refusing to work? It needs to be that if you can work but choose not to then you have to deal with the consequences of that action. People that cant work because of medical/ disability conditions can collect disability. that is fair because they cant work. Next time you see a beggar in the street , why dont you write him/her a check for $2000. I dont think you will. I usually tell them to get a job. If your standing out in the sun all day begging, then you should be able to be at-least a walmart greeter.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> Current president a "bitchboy", yes.
> However, you neglect to mention the former president, who granted a legislative monopoly to one of the most corrupt industries in the US (health insurance). Not to mention the ear marks _in the same bill_ that granted only a small handful of financial institutions the ability to offer loans of a particular type (student loans), _while being subsidized to keep interest rates low._
> The corruption stems from both sides of the isle, to be sure.


Not quite the same thing, are they?  Giving insurance to people with preexisting conditions vs giving massive tax breaks to corporations that don't need them and sucking up to dictators.  I've heard of comparing apples to oranges before, but this is more like comparing apples to volcanoes.

Also I'm still waiting on that universal healthcare Trump promised during the campaign.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Mar 12, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> and what if a said country is run by a dictator who is hell bent on purging an entire religion or faction (hitler/sadaam husein to name two) what I'm saying is sometimes illegals do this to prevent getting murdered in their own countries terrorism will exist regardless and to put islam as the only real threat is dead wrong we have neo nazi's and anarchist already in the US just waiting for the right time to strike, you know the saying "the enemy from within"?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


That's his name signed on the bill.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 12, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> "Climate" change research gets plenty of funding. Sadly, it draws from funding normally allocated to important medical/technology research that aims to enhance our quality of life.



Well, this suggests we're spending ~$12 billion yearly (plus additional spending) on climate change.  Funny how, Trump is more than willing to cut ~$5 billion for his wall from the military.  So, if we pretend we do have such specific funds, why not take another $12 billion from the military?  I mean, that's the problem with the argument if you're just upset we're not using said money on other things like medical/technology research.



0x3000027E said:


> Eh... scientific theories are, and will always be up for debate.
> The unfortunate matter, as you illustrate here, is that "climate" change became a political matter. Any serious discussion of the topic is usually obscured by some partisan political agenda.



Theories are always up for debate, but there's no one making any sort of compelling scientific argument against climate change.  The rate, the scale of the risk, and the economic cost?  Sure.  But not that it's happening.  As for it becoming a political matter, so did cigarettes.  Hell, the government supplied cigarettes to its troops at a time when it become more and more obvious that cigarettes cause cancer.  The political motivation to do anything substantial about it took decades.

When it comes to burning oil/coal/natural gas instead of cigarettes and it's not something we can "trivially" quit?  Of course there's going to be massive resistance with strawmen created and burned--at least that's carbon neutral--because those arguing for change get massive resistance.  Admittedly, the extreme doomsday stuff is overblown, but the opposite side of that is the inertia that refuses to do *anything* because they perceive any efforts to switch to other energy sources, more efficiency, etc as somehow a reduction in quality of life.  It's honestly insane when 90% of the goal is to maintain or grow the standard of living while switching to a much more carbon neutral energy base.

I get where the fear comes from.  Some of the inertia comes from lobbying, but I think it also heavily comes from the mindset that "oil is good" and something we can't live without.  Change is difficult, it rarely is done smoothly, there's almost always multiple false starts for anything massive and complex, and we don't like the disruption while ignoring the disruption is coming whether we change or not.  That's what climate change is all about:  the climate is changing if we keep doing business as usual, and eventually that will translate into all the problems above but it won't be on a controllable timetable.  It'd be, instead, things that could go a lot worse*.



Captain_N said:


> If your standing out in the sun all day begging, then you should be able to be at-least a walmart greeter.



There aren't enough walmarts for all the beggers.  Hell, plenty of walmarts don't even have greeters because they don't want to have to pay for another warm body.  That is how many companies go.

* Actually watching the Irish Potato Famine on Extra History lately.  I think most countries have the food stores to buffer probably years of problem, and even today we have overproduction of things like milk/cheese.  The US is notorious for dumping agricultural goods on a lot of countries, and they may paradoxically buffer the risks of climate change.  But the US is draining massive aquifers (another issue) and climate change will effect the US too.  I guess for at least most everyone in the Senate, it won't be their problem; they'll likely be dead well before the worst of it comes.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not quite the same thing, are they?  Giving insurance to people with preexisting conditions vs giving massive tax breaks to corporations that don't need them and sucking up to dictators.  I've heard of comparing apples to oranges before, but this is more like comparing apples to volcanoes.
> 
> Also I'm still waiting on that universal healthcare Trump promised during the campaign.


You act as if insurance is some kind of public service. 
Insurance is a business model with a profit objective.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That would be a dumb idea, that's why it isn't part of the Green New Deal.  It's just more nonsense for the alt-right to latch on to so they can keep pretending she has the same intelligence level as the president.
> 
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/
> ...



Ah, so people on the right are all morons and everyone on the left is a genius and infallible. Gotcha. I have two words: fuck. Politics.

At least that whiny bitch Clinton isn't in power.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> You act as if insurance is some kind of public service.
> Insurance is a business model with a profit objective.


Oh, absolutely.  What that means in a capitalist system is that having it or not having it can be the difference between life and death.  Obama wanted to take things a step further than Republicans allowed him to, but getting the system to insure patients with preexisting conditions was no small feat.



the_randomizer said:


> Ah, so people on the right are all morons and everyone on the left is a genius and infallible. Gotcha. I have two words: fuck. Politics.


The lesson is that you shouldn't take anybody's word at face value when it comes to politics.  Especially not the word of Dick Cheney's daughter.  When it comes to legislation, the best thing to do is read through it and form your own opinions before digesting anybody else's.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, absolutely.  What that means in a capitalist system is that having it or not having it can be the difference between life and death.  Obama wanted to take things a step further than Republicans allowed him to, but getting the system to insure patients with preexisting conditions was no small feat.



I am fucking done, no matter what views I have, no matter if I support the right-oriented views, I'm "wrong", I'm unintelligent, and more over.  If I may say something, if the right is wrong and stupid, the left is comprised of nothing but sanctimonious troglodytes.


Edit: Having a relapse, I hate this, I hate this so much


----------



## Xzi (Mar 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I am fucking done, no matter what views I have, no matter if I support the right-oriented views, I'm "wrong", I'm unintelligent, and more over.  If I may say something, if the right is wrong and stupid, the left is comprised of nothing but sanctimonious troglodytes.


You always manage to work yourself up too much over this stuff.  Nobody insulted you, and you'd know it if I had intended to.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Mar 12, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I am fucking done, no matter what views I have, no matter if I support the right-oriented views, I'm "wrong", I'm unintelligent, and more over.  If I may say something, if the right is wrong and stupid, the left is comprised of nothing but sanctimonious troglodytes.
> 
> 
> Edit: Having a relapse, I hate this, I hate this so much


This is actually one of the more civil discussions I've had in awhile. So far it's been point-counterpoint without any personal attacks.
Dont take any comments too personal or expend any emotion, it's all in good spirit!


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 12, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> This is actually one of the more civil discussions I've had in awhile. So far it's been point-counterpoint without any personal attacks.
> Dont take any comments too personal or expend any emotion, it's all in good spirit!



I'm..I've just tried to quit again, and I'm an emotional wreck right now. Please forgive me for taking this too seriously.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 12, 2019)

@Captain_N 

If you don't give them UBI or welfare they will turn to crime just like many did when factories were first becoming a thing. You either....
A.) pay them off 
B.) create an educational pathway to these new jobs (what I would be doing now)
C.) shot them in the face when they turn to crime. (what I would do)


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 12, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> I'm not looking to create a discussion between open vs closed/controlled borders but rather know why pro-open border folks like (or support) it so much.


Your flag is from Sweden now? I swear it said Portugal before.I must be going blind.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 12, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> @Captain_N
> C.) shot them in the face when they turn to crime. (what I would do)


Advocating murder? Oof.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 12, 2019)

So...five pages, and hardly anything is on topic. Hmm... 


Saiyan Lusitano said:


> I'm not looking to create a discussion between open vs closed/controlled borders but rather know why pro-open border folks like (or support) it so much.



The more I reread that statement, the less difference I see between those two. Look: you know the context here. The republicans (well...at least the president) want to build a wall. The democrats consider that a waste of money. Anyone framing that stance as meaning that democrats want an open border are simply dead wrong.

Now...I know you didn't say any of this, but you can't ignore the context. Thanks to your "leader" everyone's cautious about sharing their opinion. The moment anyone says "heh...we have 52 states with open borders between them. I have no problem with this situation as the alternative would cost lots of money to achieve nothing worth achieving", this can get reworded as "innocent bystanders SHOCKED as democrats openly welcome Mexican drug trafficking prostitute criminals into our beloved country!!!!!".


----------



## Panzerfaust (Mar 12, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> With the looming threat of climate change, borders are genocidal as the global south, which already experiences the most poverty, are the first ones being affected by climate change (by the wealthiest people in the world who are contributing the most to climate change). Keeping black and brown people out western countries as the symptoms of climate change increase is simply unethical.
> 
> People ought to have the right of free travel regardless.
> 
> We didn't used to have borders and nation states and we can get back to a place where such constructs are not needed or utilized. Why should people in the first world experience a better quality of life simply because they were born within some arbitrary lines on a map?



Your utopia worldview will never work (and never worked be4) in the real world. You may be right, that borders as we know today are sometimes arbitrary lines but there always were and still are borders based on ethnical or religious identity. There are still indigenious tribes that dont accept any outsiders and would fight to death to defend their teretory. You know what, this is how nature is working. In reality nobody should give a shit on some arbitrary lines, but protect their cultural and ethnical identity and thus their teretory. States are come and go, but the ppl and their culture stay the same.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 12, 2019)

Panzerfaust said:


> States are come and go, but the ppl and their culture stay the same.



I try not to be mean on this site but this is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on GBATemp


----------



## leon315 (Mar 12, 2019)

DeadlyFoez said:


> No idea. Anybody that does support open borders does not understand how it could completely kill an economy and puts it's citizens at risk.


here all Eurozone members are open-borders, people here can enjoy all the benefits from Duty-free on import and export.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 12, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> So...five pages, and hardly anything is on topic. Hmm...



The thing is, at least as far as goods go the world has become incredibly open borders.  If you ask people what good its done, most won't begin to comprehend the sort of trade wars with import/export taxes that used to be the norm and how it not only created a massive black market but created the wrong sort of government incentives--increasing imports/exports to increase government revenue*.  The shift away from this towards income taxes has moved governments to incentivise income and job creation, which is honestly a much better system.

Meanwhile, in a lot of ways closed borders are a new thing.  Nations in the past let a lot of people in as permanent residents and relative few could become citizens.  The notion that this would create some sort of massive imbalance wasn't seen at the time because local taxes paid for local support systems.  In the modern age, though, it's actually easier in some ways because the national tax can pay for certain local support systems but most safety nets are only available to citizens, meaning the ability of permanent residents or temporary workers to derive benefits is low but their contribution to society while paying taxes is high.  Further, they frequently don't have much power to vote, and the rules of obtaining citizenship usually contains sufficient amounts of "proof" of assimilation that even large waves of immigrants shouldn't radically and rapidly shift the ideology of a country.

I guess what I'm saying is, when I first heard the question asked, what I really thought was "why pro-closed borders people like it so much" because truly closed borders seem rather terrible.

* Beyond the way that it encouraged strip mining countries of resources or having raw goods shipped "home" to make finished goods to stratify countries in empires.  One thing about history that I'm actual curious about is just how much trade wars lead to real wars.  Certainly, colonization itself lead to many wars, but the fact that countries were effectively trying to undercut each other with mercantilism heavily enhanced the notion that when you lost in trade you made up for it in war--at least, that's my impression of the way different countries in Europe behaved in the 1700s and earlier.


----------



## Panzerfaust (Mar 12, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> I try not to be mean on this site but this is probably the stupidest thing I've ever read on GBATemp



Not as dumb as your open border bullshit ma boy. european culture in its core is the same as thousands of years be4, even after christians took over and tried to slaughter ancient religion of the germans, slavs, celtics etc... just an example.

Another example: germany lost teretory (prussia) to poland and russia (Königsberg / Kaliningrad)...so after ww2 german ppl who stayed there are now in another state, but they are still germans.

Now it's getting very offtopic...I wont reply anymore that has nothing to do with OPs topic.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 12, 2019)

Panzerfaust said:


> Another example: germany lost teretory (prussia) to poland and russia (Königsberg / Kaliningrad)...so after ww2 german ppl who stayed there are now in another state, but they are still germans.
> 
> Now it's getting very offtopic...I wont reply anymore that has nothing to do with OPs topic.



sorry i know it's off topic, but i wonder how many Europeans know *Kaliningrad *even exits


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 14, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> And eliminating airplanes



Speaking of which...  President Donald Trump says airplanes are 'becoming far too complex to fly'  His solution?  "pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT,"  So, yea, add yet another layer of complexity by having planes flown by AI*.  Then Trump can push MAGA for pilots.  *sigh*  Yet another great example of how Trump denounces someone else to turn out and prove it's because he believes the exact thing he denounces--either he's pro getting rid of pilots or he's effectively arguing for eliminating airplanes.

Hell, until we get self-driving cars, I don't think we should have wholly self-flying planes--and yes, I know in theory planes should be easier because you have planes at different altitudes and you don't have to worry about pedestrians, following limited paths, etc but the point is that planes are incredibly complex and failing safe would be exceptionally hard.

* Fun fact but plenty of fly-by-wire planes that are so hard to control often have equivalent to an AI that aids in keeping the plane up.  Sometimes it's the AI that causes the problem directly by sensor failure or the like.  Sometime it's the AI that indirectly cause the problem by masking issues until it's too late for the human pilot to more generally correct for.  And of course, plenty of times it's human error, hardware malfunction, etc.  The point is, as much as auto pilot is a thing and does a lot, it seems at best unwise to replace humans or even talk about complexity as the basis to switch to AI.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Speaking of which...  President Donald Trump says airplanes are 'becoming far too complex to fly'  His solution?  "pilots are no longer needed, but rather computer scientists from MIT,"  So, yea, add yet another layer of complexity by having planes flown by AI*.  Then Trump can push MAGA for pilots.  *sigh*  Yet another great example of how Trump denounces someone else to turn out and prove it's because he believes the exact thing he denounces--either he's pro getting rid of pilots or he's effectively arguing for eliminating airplanes.
> 
> Hell, until we get self-driving cars, I don't think we should have wholly self-flying planes--and yes, I know in theory planes should be easier because you have planes at different altitudes and you don't have to worry about pedestrians, following limited paths, etc but the point is that planes are incredibly complex and failing safe would be exceptionally hard.
> 
> * Fun fact but plenty of fly-by-wire planes that are so hard to control often have equivalent to an AI that aids in keeping the plane up.  Sometimes it's the AI that causes the problem directly by sensor failure or the like.  Sometime it's the AI that indirectly cause the problem by masking issues until it's too late for the human pilot to more generally correct for.  And of course, plenty of times it's human error, hardware malfunction, etc.  The point is, as much as auto pilot is a thing and does a lot, it seems at best unwise to replace humans or even talk about complexity as the basis to switch to AI.



I wouldn't trust autonomous cars as far as I can throw a football. Humans are imperfect, humans make mistakes, mistakes makes AI imperfect, and self-driving cars scare the hell out of me. Until all errors can be eliminated, no way. AI should not be trusted, smart technology can be hacked and exploited. I'm gonna pass on that.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 14, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> I wouldn't trust autonomous cars as far as I can throw a football. Humans are imperfect, humans make mistakes, mistakes makes AI imperfect, and self-driving cars scare the hell out of me. Until all errors can be eliminated, no way. AI should not be trusted, smart technology can be hacked and exploited. I'm gonna pass on that.


AI can learn from our mistakes and not make them, though.  AI also can't get drunk, high, or overly-emotional.  I'd agree that self-driving technology isn't quite there yet, but eventually it'll be far safer than human drivers, and not by a small margin.

As far as "hacking" autonomous cars goes, it wouldn't be any easier than hacking a car's computer right now.  Which is to say it'd be rather difficult, given where the computer is typically located in a car's assembly.  If someone wanted to do you harm, it'd be far simpler to pour sugar into your gas tank or cut your brake line.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> AI can learn from our mistakes and not make them, though.  AI also can't get drunk, high, or overly-emotional.  I'd agree that self-driving technology isn't quite there yet, but eventually it'll be far safer than human drivers, and not by a small margin.
> 
> As far as "hacking" autonomous cars goes, it wouldn't be any easier than hacking a car's computer right now.  Which is to say it'd be rather difficult, given where the computer is typically located in a car's assembly.  If someone wanted to do you harm, it'd be far simpler to pour sugar into your gas tank or cut your brake line.



Just don't want a Skynet situation in the end.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 14, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Just don't want a Skynet situation in the end.


Well then good news!  We don't have one Skynet.  We have several Skynets competing with each other to become the ultimate Skynet.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well then good news!  We don't have one Skynet.  We have several Skynets competing with each other to become the ultimate Skynet.



Yeah I'm good.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As far as "hacking" autonomous cars goes, it wouldn't be any easier than hacking a car's computer right now.



AFAIK, the only major thing protecting most computers today is their proprietary protocols for communication.  Plenty of people who have figured it out learned how to hack their system.  And as "smart" cars with built-in Android and the like become the norm, I only see it getting worse because car manufacturers are sloppy at best when it comes to security.  I mean, the whole idea of automated fleets of trucks is precisely that they can be remotely directed.  Imagine the "fun" waking up to a fleet of trucks blocking your car in or otherwise terrorizing you.  Or the "fun" when someone bricks a fleet of cars.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 14, 2019)

notimp said:


> Work ethic is motivation - pretty much solely.
> 
> Qualification is the only way out of poverty. Education is part of that.
> 
> ...



Libtemp told me open borders were good.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> AFAIK, the only major thing protecting most computers today is their proprietary protocols for communication.  Plenty of people who have figured it out learned how to hack their system.  And as "smart" cars with built-in Android and the like become the norm, I only see it getting worse because car manufacturers are sloppy at best when it comes to security.  I mean, the whole idea of automated fleets of trucks is precisely that they can be remotely directed.  Imagine the "fun" waking up to a fleet of trucks blocking your car in or otherwise terrorizing you.  Or the "fun" when someone bricks a fleet of cars.



Maybe Stephen King was right with his movie Maximum Overdrive being a reality.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 14, 2019)

I like open borders because they make it so much easier for me to invade other countries.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 14, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I like open borders because they make it so much easier for me to invade other countries.



This is leyi


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I like open borders because they make it so much easier for me to invade other countries.



A cynical way to think about it, but it makes sense.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 14, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I like open borders because they make it so much easier for me to invade other countries.


Open question: what the hell is the point of having the most powerful military on Earth, and more guns per square mile than any other country, if all it does is make us even more paranoid?

Anybody truly worried about a "Mexican invasion" needs to be asking themselves some hard questions about their own biases, because the idea is quite far detached from reality.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Open question: what the hell is the point of having the most powerful military on Earth, and more guns per square mile than any other country, if all it does is make us even more paranoid?
> 
> Anybody truly worried about a "Mexican invasion" needs to be asking themselves some hard questions about their own biases, because the idea is quite far detached from reality.


Not so much worried about a Mexican invasion. I'm more worried about power hungry politicians forcing us to live a certain way, or banning self defense or any of that crap, you know? I should be able to defend my house from the government and not someone from a foreign country. I'm more worried about corrupt politicians.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Open question: what the hell is the point of having the most powerful military on Earth, and more guns per square mile than any other country, if all it does is make us even more paranoid?
> 
> Anybody truly worried about a "Mexican invasion" needs to be asking themselves some hard questions about their own biases, because the idea is quite far detached from reality.



US isn't like any other country in Europe.There is literally every single culture of people living in America and it's just a big social experiment at this point.Every type of television programing is some form of agenda for the powerful to stay powerful and you can't even trust the news anymore because of "fake news".There is an agenda going on in the USA and most people are too ignorant to open their eyes and see it.Go to websites like reddit where the bais is completely obvious and everything is categorized into "right" and "wrong" even on subjects where the matter is objective.I don't want to get banned from LibTemp but Americans are paranoid for different reasons and it's no accident.

"“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."


----------



## Xzi (Mar 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> US isn't like any other country in Europe.There is literally every single culture of people living in America and it's just a big social experiment at this point.Every type of television programing is some form of agenda for the powerful to stay powerful and you can't even trust the news anymore because of "fake news".There is an agenda going on in the USA and most people are too ignorant to open their eyes and see it.Go to websites like reddit where the bais is completely obvious and everything is categorized into "right" and "wrong" even on subjects where the matter is objective.I don't want to get banned from LibTemp but Americans are paranoid for different reasons and it's no accident.
> 
> "“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."


Well, the experiment is Democracy, and ours is starting to decline at right around the same time it did for the Roman empire.  It's unfortunate, but the truth is that America has a sizeable population that would rather live under authoritarian rule if it means all responsibility is lifted from them and all their decisions are made for them.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 14, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well, the experiment is Democracy, and ours is starting to decline at right around the same time it did for the Roman empire.  It's unfortunate, but the truth is that America has a sizeable population that would rather live under authoritarian rule if it means all responsibility is lifted from them and all their decisions are made for them.



I don't even think most people realize that they are soon to be living under authoritarian rule,most people want handouts regardless of the consequences.We have 50% of the population that has IQ scores under 100 and certain subgroups are much lower than that on average.The current day world is highly reliant on technology which greatly reduces jobs for people that don't have a high intellectual capacity and as time goes on the problem is only going to be worse.In the past only rich people felt entitled due to how their parents raised them,but the current education system teaches even the poorest that they are entitled to everything they dream of without having to work for it.The current system of free handouts won't be feasible for long and the moral decline of the population is going to lead to a huge downfall.There are certain things that are being pushed on us that collapsed Rome back in the day(can't name them because of libtemp).I too am pretty certain that America will collapse just as Rome did,it's only a matter of time.I also predict that America is going to turn into Brazil 2.0 in terms of demographics and the way society functions.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Mar 14, 2019)

A lot of comments but few said why open borders may be good in their opinion. This is a simple question without being cheeky.

I'll let you all know that I'm against it but am interested in reading other peoples' opinions.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I don't even think most people realize that they are soon to be living under authoritarian rule,most people want handouts regardless of the consequences.We have 50% of the population that has IQ scores under 100 and certain subgroups are much lower than that on average.The current day world is highly reliant on technology which greatly reduces jobs for people that don't have a high intellectual capacity and as time goes on the problem is only going to be worse.In the past only rich people felt entitled due to how their parents raised them,but the current education system teaches even the poorest that they are entitled to everything they dream of without having to work for it. The current system of free handouts won't be feasible for long and the moral decline of the population is going to lead to a huge downfall.



Any time period in any country in history called.  They'd like to inform you nothing you said is new.



Maluma said:


> There are certain things that are being pushed on us that collapsed Rome back in the day(can't name them because of libtemp).I too am pretty certain that America will collapse just as Rome did,it's only a matter of time.I also predict that America is going to turn into Brazil 2.0 in terms of demographics and the way society functions.



Rome collapsed because of constant civil wars that were funded by generals promising their side land which necessitated constant expansion of the empire.  Couple this with the fact that Rome itself heavily denied citizenship to most people and had a massive underclass of slaves and peons which had to be constantly placated to avoid upheavals.  To that end, I'd agree with at least some of the parallels--a massive army, constantly focused on economic expansion, and a massive wealth disparity.  One major difference is that those in Rome knew that as a lower class they and their children were almost certainly doomed to the same lot in life for dozens of generations.  In America, around 50% of people are delusional enough to believe that if they only worked a little harder they could be part of the 1%.  I don't dare ask, given the obvious ways in which they'd be so much better off, why they're so quick to disparage other people for being poor and lazy and yet don't work a little harder to achieve that which they believe.

Oh, and I have no idea why you throw in Brazil.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Mar 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> AI can learn from our mistakes and not make them, though.  AI also can't get drunk, high, or overly-emotional.  I'd agree that self-driving technology isn't quite there yet, but eventually it'll be far safer than human drivers, and not by a small margin.
> 
> As far as "hacking" autonomous cars goes, it wouldn't be any easier than hacking a car's computer right now.  Which is to say it'd be rather difficult, given where the computer is typically located in a car's assembly.  If someone wanted to do you harm, it'd be far simpler to pour sugar into your gas tank or cut your brake line.



I know this is off-topic but I'd like to make a point that I think people need to understand when it comes to groundbreaking technology. This also applies to discussions around automation and its effect on the job market as well.

When it comes to both autonomous driving and AI, both are driven by computer scientists. All developments coming out of them are usually subject to Gartner's hype cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle).

What that means is that when some technology comes along that triggers development of new applications the expectation of what will be possible are hyper inflated. This may be because developers are just spitballing about possibilites or because they're enthusiastic about all the low hanging fruit they quickly solved during early development. This is where I currently see AI.
Remember, AI is considered so groundbreaking that it's considered a trigger for the fourth industrial revolution while being in fairly early development and the challenges start getting more and more apparent.

With regards to autonomous cars I believe it's starting to hit the "Trough of Disillusionment", the early drivers like Apple are already cutting their losses and getting out of it. IIRC Mercedes mentioned that correctly recognizing red lights is a huge problem and a much much harder challenge than aticipated. I would assume the "Slope of Enlightenment" will lead to very good near autonomous systems that are mainly focused on more controlled environments like Interstates / Autobahns, etc. while staying out of busy and more hectic urban traffic.

With regards to hacking, connected cars a significant security risk. Published papers showed attacks on Jeep vehicles that allowed an attacker to turn off a car driving on a highway. BMW has regularly had bad security holes in its connected cars. Earlier Tesla models used unencrypted OpenVPN. I'm not gonna lie it's pretty disgusting what they're doing from a security standpoint. I'm currently looking for a new car and I'm specifically looking for good assistance systems and infotainment systems without it being a connected car with a SIM card.


----------



## XDel (Mar 15, 2019)

What's the open boarder agenda really all about, and how come no country on the planet, that I am aware of, practices such as thing?

 Humans are immature, and so it is wise not to lay pearls before swine.


----------



## barronwaffles (Mar 15, 2019)

@supersonicwaffle 

I recently moved into a position where I'm maintaining + updating the firmware for embedded devices largely geared towards the automotive industry - and the majority of the codebases I've encountered have absolutely horrific. It's fucking terrifying.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Mar 15, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> @supersonicwaffle
> 
> I recently moved into a position where I'm maintaining + updating the firmware for embedded devices largely geared towards the automotive industry - and the majority of the codebases I've encountered have absolutely horrific. It's fucking terrifying.



Put some of the waffle magic in there!

Connected cars scare the living crap out of me. Not because I think it's an inherently bad idea but because I'm certain that manufacturers will cut corners to bring certain features to the market to get one up on their competitors while disregarding safety.

As an IT professional, I'd literally go to jail if I were to implement some of the stuff Tesla did in their cars and it wouldn't even have an affect on the physical well being of people.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 15, 2019)

XDel said:


> What's the open boarder agenda really all about, and how come no country on the planet, that I am aware of, practices such as thing?
> 
> Humans are immature, and so it is wise to lay pearls before swine.



I think he question of "how come no country on the planet [does X]?" misses the point.  Truly open borders will probably never appear, but bilateral agreements with many participating countries may become the norm in large sections of the world for the same reason that GATT and the WTO formed; there's substantial economic advantage to the ability of people to move around to deal with short or long term market changes.

he EU formed with something similar to open borders with members/associates and long-term may expand outside of Europe.  Or similar economic zones may form in other parts of the world precisely so those regions can maintain competitiveness or to grow.  Over time, I imagine regions will then establish bilateral rules for the movement of people between zones.

Protectionism [mostly] died through a rather long period (on the order of 50 years).  I wouldn't be surprised if it took another 50 (or more) to see a substantial shift towards a quasi-open border system.  I would say that if anything climate change may well accelerate the need, and open borders being the norm would cushion the damage versus dealing with the fallout of what will undoubtedly be waves of people moving.  The alternative could be a lot worse.


----------



## XDel (Mar 15, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> I think he question of "how come no country on the planet [does X]?" misses the point.  Truly open borders will probably never appear, but bilateral agreements with many participating countries may become the norm in large sections of the world for the same reason that GATT and the WTO formed; there's substantial economic advantage to the ability of people to move around to deal with short or long term market changes.
> 
> he EU formed with something similar to open borders with members/associates and long-term may expand outside of Europe.  Or similar economic zones may form in other parts of the world precisely so those regions can maintain competitiveness or to grow.  Over time, I imagine regions will then establish bilateral rules for the movement of people between zones.
> 
> Protectionism [mostly] died through a rather long period (on the order of 50 years).  I wouldn't be surprised if it took another 50 (or more) to see a substantial shift towards a quasi-open border system.  I would say that if anything climate change may well accelerate the need, and open borders being the norm would cushion the damage versus dealing with the fallout of what will undoubtedly be waves of people moving.  The alternative could be a lot worse.




New World Order. Globalization. All Eggs in One Basket. Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 15, 2019)

XDel said:


> New World Order. Globalization. All Eggs in One Basket. Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.



sounds like you're less interested in a discussion and more interested in throwing out nonsense conspiracy buzzwords?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 15, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> sounds like you're less interested in a discussion and more interested in throwing out nonsense conspiracy buzzwords?


It's not a conspiracy,but GBAtemp isn't the place to discuss certain subjects so it isn't something that can be freely discussed and explained to non believers.


----------



## XDel (Mar 16, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> sounds like you're less interested in a discussion and more interested in throwing out nonsense conspiracy buzzwords?



What good is a discussion without understanding? So I shall suggest some good reads instead, though I do warn that these books require you to have a reading level higher than that required to go through the Harry Potter series.

Phaedrus by Plato (370 B.C.)

Utopia by Thoma More (1516)

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932)

The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells (1933)

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman (1992)

The Disappearance of Childhood: Neil Postman (1994)


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

XDel said:


> New World Order. Globalization. All Eggs in One Basket. Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.


The thing is, that dystopianism always is only one side of the coin (with more than two sides  ) as well.

Its a side thats more important than most people (instagram society) would want to give it credit for (at least with digital dystopianism currently), but it  never is "reality proper" as well. Not for everyone, not for most people.

Some of the concepts you mentioned (New World Order, partly "bet everything on one outcome") are almost pop culture by now and heavily emotionally charged.

NWO, or WO - started out as a normal term in foreign political discourse, meaning the state of international relationships, and now is championed for something entirely different. Betting everything on one card, also never much is the case as well - as there are political contigency plans for many things, as there is never just one model for anything.
(Article from five days ago: https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...echnologies-governance-by-ban-ki-moon-2019-03 )

So obsessing about those, first isnt something thats very fruitful, necessarily - because they are primarily "emotional truths". While the other points you listed, can actually be discussed or argued over with a more interesting outcome.

If you are stuck in a "everything is so bad, and many people already told us in the past" loop, thats not necessary good as well. Most people simply arent. Most people simply dont care. Most people simply are happier. 

Now that said - it urks me to no end, if people run after facebook societies, for seven years - disregarding all the outcomes (journalism - dead), changes in behavior, changes ins societal weighing, changes in decision making, abuse potential (Trump), deceit of trust, and current practices that are going on (ousourcing moderating to second world countries), - and thinking that "I have nothing to hide" in any way is a proper response to all that. In that sense its a little like talking to children. But to children, that specifically dont want to know better, because everything they care about is having the "most popular thing to repeat" set in their response patterns at all time. Thats also what most people are intrinsically about. And then flipping 180 degrees into "someone that tells me, that thats me - cant exist, lets make them outcasts" at a whim, when you confront them with it. Thats the positive side of (techno)dystopianism. They are perspectives, that actually make us think about potential outcomes, before we shift entire societies towards it.

Instead we get people, that only talk in clickbait headlines in politcal forums as a result for example.

The sad thing is, that currently the critical, maybe even more dystopian perspective doesnt matter. What matters in the total markets driven version of technologically forward society ("the chinese did it!"), is only what makes money, what is popular, and what can conjour up fake feelings of "caring" so thats satisfied as well. (Id group religion and the social movement part of anti global warming activism, or CSR as a marketing measure in there.)

To me its important to see that. And not ride on dystopias coat tail all the times, or start to believe in a reverse concept of "everything is predetermened" (GOD  ), just from the you cant do anytthing about it perspective.. 

Do some small things. See if something changes. (Most often in your relationship with others.)


----------



## XDel (Mar 16, 2019)

notimp said:


> The thing is, that dystopianism always is only one side of the coin (with more than two sides  ) as well.
> 
> Its a side thats more important than most people (instagram society) would want to give it credit for (at least with digital dystopianism currently), but it  never is "reality proper" as well. Not for everyone, not for most people.
> 
> ...




You sure put a lot of words in my mouth. And all news media of the day is "emotionally charged" as is your blind faith in globalization and human leaders. On top of that, television and internet viewing requires no attention span, no attention to detail, no memory required, nor do they require the effort of research. As I have posted elsewhere with my book links, my approach to this issue comes from a psychological, biological, and sociological level.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

I do. 

People will not read five books and arrive at the same conclusions as you have. People may have arrived at the same conclusions as you have - coming from entirely different fields, and through different approaches. Thats why public discussions are important (in the political field).

Thats also where emotionally charged arguments "work best", thats why I preferably attack them (with words  ) first, if I dont agree with them.

In your case I saw you listing several issues starting off with NWO as the first, without a specific angle or comment, but with a list of books to read. I went from there... (Reacted with schema F response..  )

I also provided an interesting link, from a "NWO financed thinktank." 

edit: I'll read some of your texts btw.


----------



## notimp (Mar 16, 2019)

I've quick read Phaedrus by Plato. Interesting text. It goes from basic universal truths:


> And therefore I bid farewell to all this; the common opinion is enough for me. For, as I was saying, I want to know not about this, but about myself: am I a monster more complicated and swollen with passion than the serpent Typho, or a creature of a gentler and simpler sort, to whom Nature has given a diviner and lowlier destiny?



Towards the duality of man (rational, emotional).

Towards the philosophy of love.

Towards definitions of madness.

Towards the nature of man.

And maybe of ambition.

Towards the nature of rhetoric.

Towards different modalities of rhetoric.

Towards rhetoric mastery (unattainable, undesireable?)

Towards the motivation of still engaging in rhetoric exercise.


In between its filled with allegory and imagery thats lofty and metaphysical - so it can be literally anything and everything to everyone who reads it. But still, its not... dumb... 

What I take from it is simply the first paragraph quoted. Which I dont like.  And maybe some other elaborations on different states of human nature, which I might revisit.

It doesnt show any ambition to make a specific point in particular, and most of the talk about different forms and aspects of rhetoric, I already knew in passing, or practice... 

Oh, and everyone should learn what the term sophist means, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Always fun to revisit debates on that topic..  (= basically PR work in todays parlance..  )

If you took something entirely different out of it, thats the problem with texts such as these.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 17, 2019)

XDel said:


> New World Order. Globalization.



Whether we like it or not, we have the old world order and now the new world order; the shadow players are much the same but the stage is different.  It's not really even necessarily bigger--imperialism isn't a new thing.



XDel said:


> All Eggs in One Basket.



Nothing about open borders means an end to citizenship rules or separate governments with substantially different cultures, values, and mindsets.  Only in terms of disease do I see "all eggs in one basket", and for that we're been in that space for over a century with the development of rapid movement of people--where rapid then was on the order of weeks.  With airplanes, it's now hours and so the more virulent of plagues could cause massive damage.  Open borders don't substantially change this.



XDel said:


> Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.



If dictatorship will come, it will not be global.  The ambition of men is to be ruler of their own kingdom, not to be the vassal of another.  There's a reason 1984 has 90% of the population as proles.  Or how in Brave New World (and many others) has most the population drugged.  One could see this as a statement of oppression, but as China shows it's more than a great many people aren't interested in the power struggles of government* so long as their government, dictatorship or democracy, does not personally effect them too much.  It's also, honestly, a massive shortcut in the writing of science fiction to dismiss most the population as irrelevant, as it ignores how often that 90% being undone in their lives leads to revolution--and yes, quite frequently the new government is as bad as the old one.

My point is, it's too much an oversimplification to believe a few shadow figures can control the world.  Meaningful control cannot happen in many ways or the people will result.  The rest, most people don't care about and it's hard to argue is control at all.  That one person has a number in an electronic record shifted left 10 times** more than another?  If that's all it is, and it means nothing to the lives of anyone, who cares?  It is where effect matters, not per se were some regimes are classified as dictatorships in principle.  In practice, harm matters and should be the standard to look for and judge.

* Local corruption that gets people out of murder charges?  Yea, that's sadly too often the case.  Look no further than the current college scandal and how legal donations to the same effect are noted, but there's virtually no scorn in comparison.  Ah, yes, "fraud" is why we should be upset.  It's not the fundamental point that money buys influence and power.  It's this power that perpetuates abuse without consequence.  You don't need a dictatorship for that.

** Aka 1024 times as much money.


----------



## DuoForce (Mar 17, 2019)

No, it already ruined Europe.


----------



## XDel (Mar 17, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Whether we like it or not, we have the old world order and now the new world order; the shadow players are much the same but the stage is different.  It's not really even necessarily bigger--imperialism isn't a new thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We are already dictated to, no need to look for 1984 when Brave New World arrived a long time ago. We are complacent and just go along without ever once questioning our culture let alone the limitations of this Lower Germanic language that we all seem to be using now a days as opposed to something with more depth and connection to reality such as French or even Sanskrit.


----------



## zft (Mar 18, 2019)

deleted


----------

