No strawmanning is when you make a non-relevant point that is easily refuted in order to misdirect the discussion. I was paraphrasing you and asking you to further explain yourself. You have chosen not to do so.
Quite an incredulous statement. It certainly does not show.
There is no such thing as an entire population agreeing on whether or not they want immigrants or not. There are only individuals who want to trade with other individuals, and those who do not.
Now please stop evading the question. It is a yes or no answer. Ignoring Crime, Welfare, and democracy do you see immigrants as an economic benefit or economic cost?
I think, after reading this, it is clear you are little more than an antisocial troll who read some Ayn Rand garbage and now thinks he is a philosophical genius. You clearly don’t know what a strawman fallacy is, and don’t even really know what a logical fallacy is. “misdirect the discussion”? HA!
The law of population assumes all other conditions are fixed. Just like any other economic law, ceteris paribus conditions apply.
There would only be emigration so long as there are better opportunities elsewhere. It has nothing to do with absolute overpopulation. It would be better to look at whether immigrants add to or subtract from GDP per capita.
I’m pretty sure that he meant that it holds generally, which is wrong, the “but wait, if we add this second third and fourth condition, then you’re wrong” objection notwithstanding.
As far as Mises’ argument for open borders to reduce overpopulation and wars, there’s a simple objection. There are two ways of relieving population pressure. The first is with migration, labour moving to capital. The second is foreign investment, moving capital to labour. You can have laissez faire without laissez passer.
I understand that debates on volatile topics can become heated, but you are taking this too personally and you will have to excuse me if I no longer wish to see this debate through to the end.
There is no difference between the breeding behavior of humans and other mammals. The point I was trying to make is selective pressure, regardless of the cause, affects physical and behavioral attributes. Selective pressures need not be forcefully coercive.
Depends on the immigrants. Low IQ, uncivilized individuals will impose social costs that, in the absence of the State, would have to be borne solely by the immigrants and their sponsors rather than liberal groups billing the federal government for the costs of trying to settle Somalis in Maine.
Also, this is entirely the point: you can’t ignore “crime, welfare and democracy” because those are the prevailing conditions. In a private property regime, all movement off your own property would require somebody’s permission, and there would be no welfare, civil rights laws, Fair Housing Act, public education, public roads, birthright citizenship, AFDC, greedy developers in cahoots with local government, and on and on. Immigration would be a matter of contract and subject to market forces. Anybody wanting to import a Third World labor force would have to purchase easements with all his neighbors rather than socializing all the costs via government taxation.
IQ is a rudimentary and often fallacious method of measuring ones competency. It says nothing about the economic productivity of a person.
The purpose of seperating out crime, welfare, and economic is so that we can, in a logical and methodical fashion, discuss the points of contention on each topic. Where as previous several people here have been obfuscating their arguments mixing fear of crime with the economic problem and also claiming that immigrants are the soul responsible party for welfare. Ect…
Since the other gentlemen here were more concerned with being petty I thought I’d actually make an effort to resurrect this attroachous conversation into one that is coherent. To do that we need to look at each subject, point by point, and discuss the contentions there in. Now on the flip side, if you accept the law of comparative advantage you would know that even a retard can produce a solid economic output to society as a whole.
Ultimately though what this tells me is that you, Stephen, and the fascist reject the law of comparative advantage and reject the values of the division of labor. This is ultimately what I wanted to point out. I grow tire of weeding through other peoples self contradicting statements so I have decided to call it quits on this discussion. No one here really wants an honest discussion and other mises forum members do not seem interested in this topic for whatever reason. As such I cannot reason with the unreasonable.
Both of those economic phenomena arise from the fact that people are very different in intelligence and abilities and, as such, can be expected to craft different cultures. The idea that all cultures are equal and compatible is a public school pipe dream.
If your child gets sick, you can probably find some good, cheap low IQ doctors.
Higher IQ is correlated very strongly with lower time preference and better impulse control. Generally speaking, higher IQ individuals are more productive which is why they earn better incomes and live in nicer neighborhoods.
I hadn’t realized you could search for a physician via highest IQ. I also didn’t realize high IQ meant higher deserved salary. Perhaps I should take that up with my employer, he’s paying me too much. Excuse my sarcasm. [:)]
In NYC during the summer ice cream sales correlate with homicide rates. Perhaps we should ban ice cream?
Standardized tests are the pinnacle of empirical error.
Where did I state that cultures were equal? The law of comparative advantage assumes they are not, that is the point. The law states that if there is a party that in all aspects is inferior to another party, it would still be beneficial for both parties to trade. Their economic output overall is greater by working together, despite the differences and despite the fact that the inferior party cannot outproduce the superior party in any aspect.
Having reviewed filc’s posts - which are almost always needlessly condescending - and your own self professed adherence to libertarianism, I’m fairly confident there is nothing of value here. It may have taken a few posts to incite the truth, i.e. blood guilt is the justification for our oppression, but most posts here appear to be those of true believers, in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word. The problem is this peculiar kind of fanaticism simply does not appeal to a sufficient number of people that would required to affect political change. Therefore, it serves no purpose towards that end.
My sincerest apologies for having to use incendiary rhetorical techniques to demonstrate this fact, but you can rest easy as I will not be participating again.
As a last post - I just have to say this left me laughing out loud! Sadly, I had to grow up in Brooklyn and there is one thing I can tell you - the homicides tend to occur in neighborhoods without free standing ice cream stands (no Louie G’s in the hood!) and limited access to ice cream trucks!
I’m willing to have an honest discussion if you are.
I’m down.
Totally accept the law of association. It’s just not the only thing to consider.
Not true. I’ll engage if you stop the personal attacks and ‘summarizations’ and ‘paraphrasing.’ Actually, I don’t even mind those as long as you’re still making valid points and advancing the discussion. It just got to the point where that was all that you were doing (mischaracterizing and personalizing).
Paraphrasing is necessary when someone is being vague or is obfuscating.
Aside from that where was I personally attacking? I have no beef with anyone here, not even [EDIT] that other guy.
I added polemicists comment so you could be sure i was not attacking him. Though I guess I will refrain from calling him as much, despite he’s agreed to the name.
And yet, the Swiss don’t seem to require the importation of millions of Canadians to trade watches for wheat.
And if you think about it, if a large enough group of social democratic Canadians are plopped down in decentralized, martial Switzerland, then Switzerland won’t be ‘Switzerland’ for very long.