filc: filc: Stephen:No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand? Please explain the reasoning behind this. You never explained this, just conveniently skipped over it.
filc: Stephen:No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand? Please explain the reasoning behind this.
Stephen:No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The
Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand?
Please explain the reasoning behind this.
You never explained this, just conveniently skipped over it.
Jonathan didn't qualify his statement in such a manner. He didn't suggest that there were better opportunities elsewhere. He simply said immigrants won't come if productivity is declining. But this is not necessarily true. Of course migrants will tend to go to areas which maximize their income. If there are better opportunities elsewhere, they will go to the better opportunities. If there are not better opportunities they will go to areas where productivity is declining, if they can earn a higher income there than at their current location.
filc:And yes, Jonathan is entirely correct. In the market economy consumers/producers are attracted to each other. They don't repel each other. Is it that difficult to understand that if I want to sell something that I would be attracted to a location where there are potential buyers? As opposed to moving to a place where there are no potential buyers for my service?
It is possible for goods to be produced in one location and transported to another location.
filc: our essentially making the following argument. I am paraphrasing but this is essentially your stance. On the market sellers tend not to be attracted to consumers. That is essentially what your saying.
our essentially making the following argument. I am paraphrasing but this is essentially your stance.
On the market sellers tend not to be attracted to consumers. That is essentially what your saying.
Total strawman.
filc:To which has been refuted not just by Austrian's but everyone else that uses a little common sense.
Links please.
filc: Stephen:I didn't say that it "immigration is bad." I said that the welfare state is not solely responsible for the immigration problem. I never implied that immigration in general is a problem, just that it can be. But you have been consistently implying that immigrants are the problem over and over.
Stephen:I didn't say that it "immigration is bad." I said that the welfare state is not solely responsible for the immigration problem. I never implied that immigration in general is a problem, just that it can be.
But you have been consistently implying that immigrants are the problem over and over.
Immigration can be bad. It can also be good. It depends on certain conditions, and the qualities of the immigrants.
filc: Stephen:. By not coming into contact with members of the population who tend to be criminals, So immigrants are all criminals
Stephen:. By not coming into contact with members of the population who tend to be criminals,
So immigrants are all criminals
Strawman again. Some are criminals. You can't know ahead of time, but you can avoid bad risks.
filc: Stephen:I choose not to live in a ghetto. Stephen:And I prefer if the ghetto not move to where I live. So immigrants only live in the ghetto, and they bring the ghettos with them
Stephen:I choose not to live in a ghetto.
Stephen:And I prefer if the ghetto not move to where I live.
So immigrants only live in the ghetto, and they bring the ghettos with them
Not what I said or implied, as usual. I was just giving an example of a case where I avoid certain risks and pointed out that it was nor irrational but quite normal.
However, some immigrants come from ghettos, and do bring their ghetto lifestyles with them.
filc:Do you realize that VDARE is often categorized as a white supremacist website?
They are not, so that would indicate more about the person who is categorizing the site than it would indicate about the site.
filc:Thats like me pulling stats off the black panthers page
The New Black Panthers Party website has no statistics.
filc:do you realize that it discredits your whole defense?
I see how it would from the POV of politically correct multiculties. But I don't see why it should.
filc: Vdare FAQ Page:We do publish writers who could fairly be described as “white nationalists,” in that they explicitly defend the interests of American whites Pulled it right off their page
Vdare FAQ Page:We do publish writers who could fairly be described as “white nationalists,” in that they explicitly defend the interests of American whites
Pulled it right off their page
If you follow the link, there is only one writer, "Sam Francis." The article I linked to earlier is by Steve Sailor, who I'm not sure would qualify as a white nationalist. But even if he did, so what? What's wrong with nationalism? or white nationalism?
filc:The point is, find a more neutral source.
Like the NY Times?
filc:Still I have no doubts that you can.
Me too. I already admitted that the data is hard to find. The FBI doesn't break down ethnicity in a way useful for my purpose. I think international crime rates are a useful indication. You don't.
I found some second hand data from a Steve Sailor link. Apparently, its not good enough because the author posts on a site that is willing to publish works from nationalists. I don't see why. He claims to have got it from NCIA, which is plausible.
filc:Statistics is not about finding truths but instead about discovering a series of variables which best suit your argument.
No, it's about discovering useful information to guide one's actions under conditions of uncertainty.
Stephen:Total strawman.
How is it a Strawman? I was paraphrasing your argument. You've had since gone back and amended your answer. The point I made is entirely relevant to the subject we were debating.
Stephen:Immigration can be bad. It can also be good. It depends on certain conditions, and the qualities of the immigrants
Should you be the judge of who is or is not valuable? Or the market?
Stephen: filc: Stephen:. By not coming into contact with members of the population who tend to be criminals, So immigrants are all criminals Strawman again. Some are criminals. You can't know ahead of time, but you can avoid bad risks.
Not a strawman. You were the one implying that immigrants tend to bring crime. Not me. Dude learn what a strawman is. I am simply summaryzing your previous statements, like the one below.
Stephen:I choose not to live in a ghetto. And I prefer if the ghetto not move to where I live. I think it's very rational. Most people also act on similar irrational fears. Curious.
Stephen:Not what I said or implied, as usual. I was just giving an example of a case where I avoid certain risks and pointed out that it was nor irrational but quite normal.
So to avoid these risks we should create national isolation? We should provision fascistic measures to ensure no infiltration?
Stephen: filc:do you realize that it discredits your whole defense? I see how it would from the POV of politically correct multiculties. But I don't see why it should.
Multiculties? There are no blacks, there are no whites, there are no browns, greens and blues. There is only man, the individual.
Stephen:What's wrong with nationalism? or white nationalism?
Fascism is at the heart at what we are debating. And how it causes price inflation, a greater consumption of scarce resources, and smaller volume of goods for national citizen's. If only you actually read HA in full.
--------------------
Answer me this,
Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration? Do you understand why freely moving labor balances prices, increases productivity, and makes everyone as a whole wealthier?
Stephen:Yes. In particular if they understand basic economics and are able to follow a chain of logical reasoning, then I expect them to take it seriously.
No there is no level of reasoning and logic involved. The Malthusian theory leaves out extremely important variables. Primarily the ability for, under free conditions, labor move to locations with better conditions The law also fails to account for whatever new technology is introduced as demand for efficiency would be high in those situations. The Malthusian theory describes a situation that the market will correct on it's own before it ever gets to extremes. We need not look at it beyond there. It has nothing to do with why immigrants are coming here, especially since we are not even remotely closed to being overpopulated by comparison and because there has, prior to the bust, been a huge demand for manual labor and labor below the minimum wage.
If I told Mr. Malthus in 1798 that the future would yield situations where 100+ families would live in the same 120foot squared lot. Malthus would have explained to me what a depressed situation this would likely be. If I then told him that these 100 families are likely to be anywhere from middle income to upper income wealthy families he likely would have dissmissed this as a pure fairy tale.
But such situations are common now days, and indeed it tends to be more of the wealthier class. This building below seems to be in conflict with the maltheusian theory.
In the year 1750 it has been estimated that the world housed 790 million people. What do you think Malthus would have told me if I mentioned to him that the future, in the 21st century, we will have surpassed 6 billion?
If we were in a situation where we were overpopulated we would be experiencing emigration, not immigration. So your point is irrelevant to the situation we are discussing. Prices would be higher, things would be scarce. There would be less to go around for everyone. The United States would not be as nearly wealthy as it is. We are not experiencing a Malthusian catastrophe in this country. Your point is conceded yet again.
---------------
Stephen:The law of returns asserts that for the combination of economic goods of the higher orders (factors of production) there exists an optimum. If one deviates from this optimum by increasing the input of only one of the factors, the physical output either does not increase at all or at least not in the ratio of the increased input. This law, as has been demonstrated above, is implied in the fact that the quantitative definiteness of the effects brought about by any economic good is a necessary condition of its being an economic good.
Your trying to compare the law of returns to overpopulation. But your problem is you do not know what the threshold is specifically at where increased labor brings increased productivity, to when increased labor brings decreased productivity per unit of output. Now if oyu were a god like omniscient creature I would concede this point but you do not know. You do not know if hershey's should produce 1000 candy bars this year or 100,000,000 candy bars. You do not know where that perfect line is.
Since we have observed an extreme demand for manual labor in this country we can easily assume that we are FAR from that threshold, and that your point is a frivolous one at best.
The law of returns applies because the goods produced or provided exceed it's market demand. Such is not the current situation.
The Malthusian law of population and the concepts of absolute overpopulation and under-population and optimum population derived from it are the application of the law of returns to a special problem. They deal with changes in the supply of human labor, other factors being equal. Because people, for political considerations, wanted to reject the Malthusiam law, they fought with passion but with faulty arguments against the law of returns?--which, incidentally, they knew only as the law of diminishing returns of the use of capital and labor on land. Today we no longer need to pay any attention to these idle remonstrances. The law of returns is not limited to the use of complementary factors of production on land. The endeavors to refute or to demonstrate its validity by historical and experimental investigations of agricultural production are as needless as they are [p. 130] vain. He who wants to reject the law would have to explain why people are ready to pay prices for land. If the law were not valid, a farmer would never consider expanding the size of his farm. He would be in a position to multiply indefinitely the return of any piece of soil by multiplying his input of capital and labor.
I re-emphasized the quote for you. But the farmer is not allowed to expand his farm. Because, according to you, he would be a hinderence to the local economy causing over consumption in proportion to production(Ignoring his economic output). Lets say the parcel of land he wants to purchase is over an artificial city boundary. Your argument would state that he should not expand, he should not create additional food for people. The argument is counter-economical.
Mises assumes that a producer of any type is free to do as he pleases and make the appropriate provisions necessary to expand his business.
You need to re-read Chapter 30 of HA. Interference with the structure of prices. Mises touches several times in HA on nationalism and closed borders policy's and why it harms the overall economy. American's have proved over and over that they do not want to purchase high cost, allegedly high quality, goods. Consumers are smart and wish to go the most economical route. This is why many people could care less to buy a less efficient good made in the states, unless it's quality compensated for the price.
HA Pg 824:Under laissez faire peaceful coexistence of a multitude of sovereign nations is possible. Under government control of business it is impossible. The tragic error of President Wilson was that he ignored this essential point. Modern total war has nothing in common with the limited war of the old dynasties. It is a war against trade and migration barriers, a war of the comparatively overpopulated countries against the comparatively underpopulated. It is a war to abolish those institutions which prevent the emergence of a tendency toward an equalization of wage rates all over the world. It is a war of the farmers tilling poor soil against those governments which bar them from access to much more fertile soil lying fallow. It is, in short, a war of wage earners and farmers who describe themselves as underprivileged “have-nots” against the wage earners and farmers of other nations whom they consider privileged “haves.”
Stephen:Jonathan didn't qualify his statement in such a manner. He didn't suggest that there were better opportunities elsewhere. He simply said immigrants won't come if productivity is declining. But this is not necessarily true. Of course migrants will tend to go to areas which maximize their income. If there are better opportunities elsewhere, they will go to the better opportunities. If there are not better opportunities they will go to areas where productivity is declining, if they can earn a higher income there than at their current location.
The bolded text is all we are concerned with. There are no situations where there is a only the option between A and B. The options are between A, vs b through Z. Allow me to re-quote myself.
filc: So the option is not chosen between A and B. To Stay or to Go But between A and B through Z. A to Stay, B through Z are potential destinations. All 25 possibilities might be better then his current location but it would be in his best interest the location where the demand for labor is highest as opposed to lowest.
So the option is not chosen between A and B.
To Stay or to Go
But between A and B through Z.
A to Stay, B through Z are potential destinations. All 25 possibilities might be better then his current location but it would be in his best interest the location where the demand for labor is highest as opposed to lowest.
filc: Answer me this, Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration? Do you understand why freely moving labor balances prices, increases productivity, and makes everyone as a whole wealthier?
Filc, you simply don't understand. You have a particular theory that assumes all people are equal in ability, in behavioral tendencies, cultural aptitude, and creativity.
For the 10% of the world's population that descends from the aboriginal inhabitants of the European continent (aka white people), the issue with immigraiton is quite clear. Wherever such people are the majority, peace and civilization is the rule. Wherever they are an established minority, chaos, filth, anarchy, and madness dominate. Where such nations transition from majority white to majority non-white, whites suffer greatly.
There are no exceptions to this rule.
You can pretend this is racist, you can pretend that white people will continue to accept millions of your kinsman into our lands forever, but I assure you it will not, it cannot continue. Why don't you return to your place of origin and instruct your own kin on how to have a civilized and functioning economy? Oh, I know. Like most of the more intelligent non-white people, you know your native culture and your people are beyond redemption. So, you flee. But, you and your kin are not fleeing your lands simply to make more money, you are literally fleeing for your life. You are, in short, a coward. Your ability to flee is only possible due to the sacrifice of literally millions of white people in generations past who established by force the level of civility you take for granted. Unlike you, they did not look at the chaos and barbarism of a particular land with fear.
I'm going to tell you something about cowards: they are by nature slaves.
The only thing that doesn't understand here polemicist is your inability to cope reality. Before you can fabricate an argument you must first comprehend economics and accept reality. You really haven't the slightest idea of what your talking about nor do you desire to educate yourself. Your blaming immigrants on the financial crisis. That alone is hysterical in and of itself.
filc: Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration?
Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration?
Answer the question or leave it be. Don't post strawmen that are constructed from fairy tales, assertions, and emotions.
polemicist:You can pretend this is racist, you can pretend that white people will continue to accept millions of your kinsman into our lands forever
It's not your land child.
Actually pole I encourage you to continue responding with your rhetorical nonesense. It just gives my argument that much more merit.
filc: Actually pole I encourage you to continue responding with your rhetorical nonesense. It just gives my argument that much more merit.
Please, tell us, why don't you use your incredible debating skills on your kin in your homeland? If it all so easy to prove, it should be an easy task, no?
polemicist:Please, tell us, why don't you use your incredible debating skills on your kin in your homeland? If it all so easy to prove, it should be an easy task, no?
I have already proved it above, you choose to skip over it.
I am white, but I choose not defend our "kin" because you and others are not my "kin". My brother is whom I choose it to be. You and your vile "racially superiors" are also not my brothers. The concept that a race is supior to another is superficial and counter-beneficial if our interest is common welfare and economic prosperity.
In other words, I choose not to live in the false dichotomy world that you subscribe to. The white jingoism of us vs them, I do not subscribe to this. There is no Us vs Them, this is a fairy tale you have planted in your head, a sad one as well.
I advocate for the individual, beyond that there is nothing. You advocate for a selected collective or group.
filc:I am white, but I choose not defend our "kin" because you and others are not my "kin". My brother is whom I choose it to be. You and your vile "racially superiors" are also not my brothers.
Fine. Tell us from where you come. You have problems with some grammar, which indicates to me that your native tongue is not of a Germanic or Latin origin. Better yet, tell me where you live now.
filc:The concept that a race is supior to another is superficial and counter-beneficial if our interest is common welfare and economic prosperity.
I have made no such claim that one race is superior to another. YOUR "common welfare and economic prosperity" is clearly not that of white people. As I have said, there is not a single polity anywhere in the world where white people, as an established minority, can live or have lived peacefully. Immigration only exists in terms of non-white people moving into predominantly white countries. White people in significant numbers are never moving into predominantly non-white countries unless they are destitute retirees.
If this issue of economic prosperity was so simple and universal without respect to race, then one would think there would be one country, one city, someplace on this vast earth where white people would consider moving and for which they are allowed to move easily (i.e. say Tokyo), but there is not.
When you are standing on the front surrounded by a world that has gone up in flames, you tell yourself it is a fairy tale.
I advocate for the individual, beyond that there is nothing.
Fine, do it in some other country where they desperately need your services.
You advocate for a selected collective or group.
You're right.
filc:Multiculties? There are no blacks, there are no whites, there are no browns, greens and blues. There is only man, the individual.
When you go to the dog breeder, do you not notice the behavioral differences of animals? Do you deny that selective breeding has no impact on mammals? Why on earth would you think selective breeding doesn't happen with humans?
HA indeed! This is some funny stuff! You can make all sorts of claims about fascism, but this - I don't think so. Let's take Germany. In 1933, the country had very little industry. Industrial sections of the country were under military occupation. Debt payments resulted in mass starvation as the country had, since the 1860s, needed to export goods for food. In a mere six years under a system of government you identify as "fascism", a country the size of Texas with 50 million people, no oil, and limited industry was recreated such that it was an industrial superpower capable of fighting the combined forces of the United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union for almost six years.
Does that really sound like an economic failure to you?
polemicist:When you go to the dog breeder, do you not notice the behavioral differences of animals? Do you deny that selective breeding has no impact on mammals? Why on earth would you think selective breeding doesn't happen with humans?
Because nobody has proven God?
Angurse: polemicist:When you go to the dog breeder, do you not notice the behavioral differences of animals? Do you deny that selective breeding has no impact on mammals? Why on earth would you think selective breeding doesn't happen with humans? Because nobody has proven God?
I am not quite sure what your point is. I would argue that the egalitarian delusion, i.e. the tabula rasa belief of human nature, directly descends from monotheism. The logic, predicated on faith, is that there is one god who created humans in his image, and therefore all humans are equally "godly".
Certainly, no culture that practiced polytheism believed this.
Dogs were selectively bred by people to develop their different traits, who, if not god, selectively bred people?
polemicist: Better yet, tell me where you live now.
Now why could this possibly be relevent?
polemicist: YOUR "common welfare and economic prosperity" is clearly not that of white people.
My economic welfare and prosperity is my own concern, and my own business. And you hold no authority over that nor that of others coercer. You are a modern mystic.
polemicist:As I have said, there is not a single polity anywhere in the world where white people, as an established minority, can live or have lived peacefully.
Hmm do you really want to visit the history on this one? I think there is a pretty good reason for this. It couldn't be because white people oppressed and killed practically every nation it migrated to could it?
polemicist:When you are standing on the front surrounded by a world that has gone up in flames, you tell yourself it is a fairy tale.
When the day comes that my home is being burned to the ground by immigrants I'll concede the point. Until then you can continue being spooked by your ghosts and goblins. Funny that immigrants come here to work, yet you conclude they come here to destroy. The two concepts seem somewhat the opposite of each other. You imply that immigrants don't come here to better their own economic welfare.
polemicist:Fine, do it in some other country where they desperately need your services.
I'll do it where I want. I am successful here, that implies that my services are needed. For if my services were not needed I would not be deriving a profit. I guess there are those who would disagree with you eh? It's a good thing you don't speak for everyone.
Are you implying that different pigmentations of the skin constitutes a different race? That the genetic code makeup of various people makes them a different species of man? If we followed that argument to a logical conclusion then we would also have to conclude that people with different colored hair are of a different race. People with large ears a different race. People that are short, a race, tall a race. And every genetic discrepency a different race.
Then we would have to arbitrarily assume that some of those races are more superior to others.
Extending taxonomy beyond that of classification is useless, and whatever judgments you derive from it arbitrary.
polemicist: HA indeed! This is some funny stuff! You can make all sorts of claims about fascism, but this - I don't think so. Let's take Germany. In 1933, the country had very little industry. Industrial sections of the country were under military occupation. Debt payments resulted in mass starvation as the country had, since the 1860s, needed to export goods for food. In a mere six years under a system of government you identify as "fascism", a country the size of Texas with 50 million people, no oil, and limited industry was recreated such that it was an industrial superpower capable of fighting the combined forces of the United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union for almost six years. Does that really sound like an economic failure to you?
I'll leave this to the historian's if they are interested.
I want to ask you a question, open and honest. I don't mean this in a derogatory extent. Are you a nazi? What literature are you reading to be so zealous?
Also you have gone on half a page now evading my question. What are you scared of? Please answer it.
polemicist:Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration?
polemicist:Fine. Tell us from where you come. You have problems with some grammar, which indicates to me that your native tongue is not of a Germanic or Latin origin. Better yet, tell me where you live now.
Strawman and irrelevant.
Also no one here is an egalitarian. The whole principle of the division of labor and law of comparative advantage is that we aren't equal. Do you have any clue as to what your talking about?
Angurse: Dogs were selectively bred by people to develop their different traits, who, if not god, selectively bred people?
I'm sure you know a few economists who surely cannot find a willing sex partner. Obviously, people selectively breed people. Why else do you think we have these pointless debates on the internet and a huge pornography industry. For people who cannot exercise their will to power in the sexual realm, pretending that their ideas will affect the course of history is the next best thing.
As for your origin, filc, I tend to think you are being dishonest. As I said, your grammatical errors tend to leave out prepositions and articles, something that is common in speakers of non-European languages, i.e. Chinese. Your style is most certainly not Western. I admit, I am not terribly familiar with Slavic languages, but as they are amongst the most ethnocentric of white people and have a problem with race riots even today, I would imagine you would be more understanding of this particular issue.
filc:My economic welfare and prosperity is my own concern, and my own business. And you hold no authority over that nor that of others coercer. You are a modern mystic.
Authority, that is the question. What is the source of that word? Auctoritas, which pertains to my original question to you about how civilization began. Hannah Arendt argued quite persuasively that this ancient Roman concept is a direct reference to these original founding acts. It is political power that comes from continually maintaining and reinforcing principles of social organization that came from the beginning.
In short, authority matters only in as much as you can convince others to follow you. There is an intrinsic recognition of auctoritas in those not consumed with hubris, i.e. the common man who recognizes his place. If I can convince enough people to follow me and establish authority over you, then it is done.
I would read more about the ancient notions of statecraft. There is much more to ruling than simply making a logical argument.
filc: polemicist:As I have said, there is not a single polity anywhere in the world where white people, as an established minority, can live or have lived peacefully. Hmm do you really want to visit the history on this one? I think there is a pretty good reason for this. It couldn't be because white people oppressed and killed practically every nation it migrated to could it?
Well, I finally pushed you to admit the truth. What you are doing is turning an economic theory into dogma for the express purposes of righting a perceived wrong. White people are justified in being deprived of a safe homeland exclusive to them because their ancestors supposedly caused much harm.
Some immigrants undoubtedly do, but that is really not relevant. Because some immigrants have a strong work ethic does not change the fact that no society has peacefully transitioned from majority white to minority white. It doesn't matter what other conditions you put on it.
You also ignore my statement that most immigrants don't really come here to better their "economic" welfare - they come here because their own countries are practically anarchies and they fear for their lives. I peg you in that group - but all of them, they are cowards. They should all stay and fight to create order in their own lands.
filc: polemicist:Fine, do it in some other country where they desperately need your services. I'll do it where I want. I am successful here, that implies that my services are needed. For if my services were not needed I would not be deriving a profit. I guess there are those who would disagree with you eh? It's a good thing you don't speak for everyone.
I'm not referring to your employment. You could be a drug dealer or male prostitute for all I know. Your profitability is not the issue, the question is why do you wish to advocate a particular form of economics that is dependent upon a high level of civilization when you abandoned your own homeland because it lacked such civilization? Civilization is a prerequisite for any meaningful kind of complex economic system, therefore it makes much more sense to establish that first. You come here to tell us what to do, but you are too cowardly to make a difference from whence you came.
filc: polemicist:When you go to the dog breeder, do you not notice the behavioral differences of animals? Do you deny that selective breeding has no impact on mammals? Why on earth would you think selective breeding doesn't happen with humans? Are you implying that different pigmentations of the skin constitutes a different race? That the genetic code makeup of various people makes them a different species of man? If we followed that argument to a logical conclusion then we would also have to conclude that people with different colored hair are of a different race. People with large ears a different race. People that are short, a race, tall a race. And every genetic discrepency a different race. Then we would have to arbitrarily assume that some of those races are more superior to others. Extending taxonomy beyond that of classification is useless, and whatever judgments you derive from it arbitrary.
Skin color alone is not sufficient, but it certainly is sufficient for those non-white people who target us. But to answer your question, I subscribe to the theories of race as they exist in Hinduism. The word "caste" is a better word than "race".
In any event, you are changing the purpose of my question. You made the very direct assertion that there is fundamentally no difference between various groups of people. There are simply humans. I did not ask you if a particular taxonomy had utility, I merely question your assertion. Libertarian types, particularly Ayn Randians, fundamentally justify their twisted philosophy specifically upon this belief, which you now seem to be suggesting you do not share - you merely feel that such judgments will be arbitrary.
But to get to your incendiary questions, like you, I believe in competition - not between individuals, but between ethnic polities - the way the world was before the modern era. Some level of immigration could be allowed of course, but every group should have the right to resist if they choose.
The judgments about which you write would merely come from the relative successes and failures of various groups.
filc:I want to ask you a question, open and honest. I don't mean this in a derogatory extent. Are you a nazi? What literature are you reading to be so zealous? Also you have gone on half a page now evading my question. What are you scared of? Please answer it. Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration?
How can one read literature and not be so zealous? From Homer to the modern greats of the 20th century such as Ezra Pound or T.S. Eliot, I can think of no great writer of the past who would sympathize with your vision. Austrian economics has some very useful ideas, but again I proclaim that economics is a tool to serve culture and tribe and no particular conclusion or axiom drawn from economic theory can be accepted if its effects are ultimately negative in that regard.
No culture can encompass all motifs, or it is not a culture: culture is made from a values system that has a preference for some things over another; it is for this reason that we have cultures at all, and not a single culture based on a single interpretation of the same world. What will exist instead is the cultureless masses ruled over by a few rich, because in the absence of culture, only financial supremacy will matter.
Further, the globalist vision you advocate suggests a destruction not only of culture, but of genetic distinctiveness, despite the fact you deny its relevence. What is to be gained by breeding us into uniformity? Peace,you say, freedom and prosperity. But these are easy to promise, and evidence suggests that when culture disappears, it is replaced by rigid class systems which encourage financial strife of a far greater degree than experienced in traditional societies. Perhaps with one global nation, there will not be external wars, but a neverending series of revolutions, which seem to cause greater damage.
Even more damaging, the above view suggests a norming of humanity to a level of participation in the most generic culture ever existing. "French" will be a type of mustard, not a living organic population that invents new cultural artifacts and ideas constantly. No one will have roots, and people will move endlessly in pursuit of better jobs or material satisfaction, but they will miss the satisfaction of belonging to a community and developing according to its values system. They will lose the chance to succeed internally by challenging themselves with non-material tasks and making themselves better. Their culture will come from malls and television shows, and their history will come from books printed by large corporate interests.
Another problem with "one world" culture is that the larger a civilization becomes, the more difficult it is to rule, as former empires such as the Romans have found. Without a unifying culture except money to unite them, and without a higher values system than material self-interest, the occupants of this future society will live empty lives, and from this stress will arise. Since they move constantly, they will not respect any land as holy, but will develop it all. Finally, since they have no goal in life except material self-interest, they will become the hollowest of humans ever, and will drag down any who hope to rise above their shallow regime. And they will do all of this at the expense of having destroyed traditional culture, way of life, and the specialized genetics of each ethnicity which makes it apt for its region.
While some like to portray "one world culture" as a positive thing, we can see where vast problems exist with this view. Even more, we can see how it is destructive, as if desiring to wreak vengeance upon those who are not normed to a universal culture and those who rise above a common standard. In the grand tradition of spacy promises, it is framed in an absolute with not only no necessary correspondence to reality, but no actual description of how it would work. Swindlers have often worked this style, promising vast rewards of unspecified type in order to lure in the clueless and take their money, and we must conjecture the motivation behind "one world culture" advocates and swindlers alike is a desire for revenge arising from low self-confidence. Why would we destroy what nature took millennia to create for the vengeful fantasies of "equalizers" who hate those who are different than they, or gifted in ability more than they? This is suicide, even if it is portrayed as having a beautiful face -- with equally empty rewards.
Immigration destroys both source and destination populations. At the source, it removes valuable workers and splits families, in addition to discouraging people from fixing whatever problems inspired emigration in the first place. At the destination, it dilutes the local population and subjects them to an unwelcome economic force in the form of people willing to work for less as they bear less of a burden of citizenship. The resulting friction divides the nation further and causes a disruptive level of distrust, alienation, and lack of consensus about social values.
Modern societies use immigrants for cheap labor, alienating both them and the destination population, and then justifies this cheap labor with rhetoric about "civil rights," which has become a code-word for political power to minority groups. Yet when we look at the real reason for this immigration, we see that no consensus among society finds it a good idea, only wealthy individuals and corporations who profit from it at the expense of all in both source and destination countries.
@ filc
Strawmanning is when you misrepresent someone's argument as something which can be easily attacked in a manner which gives the appearance of refutation.
filc: Stephen:What's wrong with nationalism? or white nationalism? Fascism is at the heart at what we are debating. And how it causes price inflation, a greater consumption of scarce resources, and smaller volume of goods for national citizen's. If only you actually read HA in full.
nationalism is not the same as facism. I have read HA. In fact, I've probably read more austrian literature than you will ever read in your lifetime.
filc:Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration? Do you understand why freely moving labor balances prices, increases productivity, and makes everyone as a whole wealthier?
Ultimately it depends on the desire of the host population to have immigrants.
Stephen:Strawmanning is when you misrepresent someone's argument as something which can be easily attacked in a manner which gives the appearance of refutation.
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.
Stephen:nationalism is not the same as facism.
More or less yea it is.
Stephen:I have read HA. In fact, I've probably read more austrian literature than you will ever read in your lifetime.
Quite an incredulous statement. It certainly does not show.
Stephen:Ultimately it depends on the desire of the host population to have immigrants.
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.
filc:Ignoring Democracy, ignoring potential Crime, and Ignoring welfare. As if those 3 did not exist and were not a concern. What would be your issue with immigration?
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?
filc: Stephen:Strawmanning is when you misrepresent someone's argument as something which can be easily attacked in a manner which gives the appearance of refutation. 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.
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!
polemicist:I'm sure you know a few economists who surely cannot find a willing sex partner. Obviously, people selectively breed people. Why else do you think we have these pointless debates on the internet and a huge pornography industry. For people who cannot exercise their will to power in the sexual realm, pretending that their ideas will affect the course of history is the next best thing.
That isn't selective breeding at all. Otherwise the natural occurrence of animal mating is also selective breeding, voiding it of any meaning.
filc: Stephen:Yes. In particular if they understand basic economics and are able to follow a chain of logical reasoning, then I expect them to take it seriously. No there is no level of reasoning and logic involved. The Malthusian theory leaves out extremely important variables. Primarily the ability for, under free conditions, labor move to locations with better conditions The law also fails to account for whatever new technology is introduced as demand for efficiency would be high in those situations.
No there is no level of reasoning and logic involved. The Malthusian theory leaves out extremely important variables. Primarily the ability for, under free conditions, labor move to locations with better conditions The law also fails to account for whatever new technology is introduced as demand for efficiency would be high in those situations.
The law of population assumes all other conditions are fixed. Just like any other economic law, ceteris paribus conditions apply.
filc:If we were in a situation where we were overpopulated we would be experiencing emigration, not immigration. So your point is irrelevant to the situation we are discussing. Prices would be higher, things would be scarce. There would be less to go around for everyone. The United States would not be as nearly wealthy as it is. We are not experiencing a Malthusian catastrophe in this country. Your point is conceded yet again.
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.
filc:Perhaps you and Stranger took Jonathan's statement a tad bit too literally. There is no reason to be so hasty to judge though. If we consider things reasonably, then it's reasonable to assume that situations where there are only 2 options are less likely than situations where there are many options.
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.
filc:Quite an incredulous statement. It certainly does not show.
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.
Stephen: filc:Quite an incredulous statement. It certainly does not show. 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.
I am not the one making incredulous statements my friend.
Angurse: polemicist:I'm sure you know a few economists who surely cannot find a willing sex partner. Obviously, people selectively breed people. Why else do you think we have these pointless debates on the internet and a huge pornography industry. For people who cannot exercise their will to power in the sexual realm, pretending that their ideas will affect the course of history is the next best thing. That isn't selective breeding at all. Otherwise the natural occurrence of animal mating is also selective breeding, voiding it of any meaning.
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.
polemicist: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.
I see, you were just using the term "selective breeding" incorrectly.
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.
Have a good one.
polemicist,
drop the inquisition of filc over his race and origin. Mention it one more time, or call him a coward again (or any other insult), and you're out.
Byzantine:If you get cancer, you can probably find some good, cheap low IQ doctors.
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.
Byzantine: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.
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.
Byzantine: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.
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.
Grayson Lilburne: polemicist, drop the inquisition of filc over his race and origin. Mention it one more time, or call him a coward again (or any other insult), and you're out.
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.
filc: Byzantine: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. 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.
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!
filc: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.
I'm willing to have an honest discussion if you are.
filc:To do that we need to look at each subject, point by point, and discuss the contentions there in.
I'm down.
filc: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.
Totally accept the law of association. It's just not the only thing to consider.
filc:No one here really wants an honest discussion
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.
polemicist:I am actually a fascist,
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.
A good example on protectionism.
Mises HA Pg 395 4th revised edition (PRICES): Modern technology could easily grow oranges and grapes in hot-houses in the arctic and subarctic countries. Everybody would call such a venture lunacy. But it is essentially the same to preserve the growing of cereals in rocky mountain valleys by tariffs and other devices of protectionism while elsewhere there is plenty of fallow fertile land. The difference is merely one of degree. The inhabitants of the Swiss Jura prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer to acquire watches. The fact that the inhabitants of the Jura do not grow wheat and the Canadians do not manufacture watches is not more worthy of notice than the fact that tailors do not make their shoes and shoemakers do not make their clothes.
Modern technology could easily grow oranges and grapes in hot-houses in the arctic and subarctic countries. Everybody would call such a venture lunacy. But it is essentially the same to preserve the growing of cereals in rocky mountain valleys by tariffs and other devices of protectionism while elsewhere there is plenty of fallow fertile land. The difference is merely one of degree.
The inhabitants of the Swiss Jura prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer to acquire watches. The fact that the inhabitants of the Jura do not grow wheat and the Canadians do not manufacture watches is not more worthy of notice than the fact that tailors do not make their shoes and shoemakers do not make their clothes.