If You Are in Favor of Open Borders. Why?

[the_randomizer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Panzerfaust]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.