Immigrants make you richer.

[Seth]

As I have said before, I am neither libertarian nor socialist. Or, put another way, I am both. I believe in free enterprise, and in government controls. I believe in personal liberty, and in helping those less fortunate via government and taxes. Or else, you could say I believe in balance, not extremism.

You can't claim to be a libertarian of any stripe if you support involuntary taxation for income redistribution because that is a fatal violation of the fundamental principles of Libertarianism.

You are free to support those less fortunate with YOUR money, but in Libertarianism, you are NOT free to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money and redistribute it to others.

If you believe that you are justified in forcibly taking other people's money in order to redistribute it to those less fortunate, you are not, ipso facto a believer in personal liberty.

Your "balance" consists entirely of a one-sided desire to tell others how they are allowed to dispose of their labor and what portion of it they must give over to your sense of social justice and you implicitly advocate and support the use of force, up to and including deadly force, to extract that tribute from the unwilling.

In other words, you're a Marxist and not any sort of Libertarian at all.

[Seth]

Not really.

I support the approach carried out by the most successful nations on the planet in terms of maximum welfare for their citizens. This includes Scandinavian nations, and my own country. New Zealand dropped this year by one point from least corrupt nation to second least, with Denmark taking top spot. The USA, that bastion of libertarianism, is number 19, which puts it at the bottom of the list for western nations.

Corruption in government is not a measure of individual liberty. This is because government defines what "corruption" means, and therefore can construct itself to be "corruption free" while abysmally abusing and robbing its citizens of their liberty and property.

Stalin did not think his government corrupt, he considered it to be the epitome of human social organization.

And once again you cherry-pick your stats by using the modifier "western nations." That's intellectually and ethically dishonest.

[JimC]

As I have said before, I am neither libertarian nor socialist. Or, put another way, I am both. I believe in free enterprise, and in government controls. I believe in personal liberty, and in helping those less fortunate via government and taxes. Or else, you could say I believe in balance, not extremism.

You can't claim to be a libertarian of any stripe if you support involuntary taxation for income redistribution because that is a fatal violation of the fundamental principles of Libertarianism.

You are free to support those less fortunate with YOUR money, but in Libertarianism, you are NOT free to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money and redistribute it to others.

If you believe that you are justified in forcibly taking other people's money in order to redistribute it to those less fortunate, you are not, ipso facto a believer in personal liberty.

Your "balance" consists entirely of a one-sided desire to tell others how they are allowed to dispose of their labor and what portion of it they must give over to your sense of social justice and you implicitly advocate and support the use of force, up to and including deadly force, to extract that tribute from the unwilling.

In other words, you're a Marxist and not any sort of Libertarian at all.

It's all binary to you, isn't it. If you are not a libertarian, you must be a marxist...

A delusional, weird and ignorant perspective.

[klr]

As I have said before, I am neither libertarian nor socialist. Or, put another way, I am both. I believe in free enterprise, and in government controls. I believe in personal liberty, and in helping those less fortunate via government and taxes. Or else, you could say I believe in balance, not extremism.

You can't claim to be a libertarian of any stripe if you support involuntary taxation for income redistribution because that is a fatal violation of the fundamental principles of Libertarianism.

You are free to support those less fortunate with YOUR money, but in Libertarianism, you are NOT free to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money and redistribute it to others.

If you believe that you are justified in forcibly taking other people's money in order to redistribute it to those less fortunate, you are not, ipso facto a believer in personal liberty.

Your "balance" consists entirely of a one-sided desire to tell others how they are allowed to dispose of their labor and what portion of it they must give over to your sense of social justice and you implicitly advocate and support the use of force, up to and including deadly force, to extract that tribute from the unwilling.

In other words, you're a Marxist and not any sort of Libertarian at all.

It's all binary to you, isn't it. If you are not a libertarian, you must be a marxist...

A delusional, weird and ignorant perspective.

Seth probably thinks zero is some sort of dodgy furrin concept. Which of course it is.

[Seth]

As I have said before, I am neither libertarian nor socialist. Or, put another way, I am both. I believe in free enterprise, and in government controls. I believe in personal liberty, and in helping those less fortunate via government and taxes. Or else, you could say I believe in balance, not extremism.

You can't claim to be a libertarian of any stripe if you support involuntary taxation for income redistribution because that is a fatal violation of the fundamental principles of Libertarianism.

You are free to support those less fortunate with YOUR money, but in Libertarianism, you are NOT free to take OTHER PEOPLE'S money and redistribute it to others.

If you believe that you are justified in forcibly taking other people's money in order to redistribute it to those less fortunate, you are not, ipso facto a believer in personal liberty.

Your "balance" consists entirely of a one-sided desire to tell others how they are allowed to dispose of their labor and what portion of it they must give over to your sense of social justice and you implicitly advocate and support the use of force, up to and including deadly force, to extract that tribute from the unwilling.

In other words, you're a Marxist and not any sort of Libertarian at all.

It's all binary to you, isn't it. If you are not a libertarian, you must be a marxist...

A delusional, weird and ignorant perspective.

You're either an individualist or a collectivist. Either the individual has rights that are inherent and not granted by the government or the collective has rights that are granted by the government and the individual has only those rights the collective grants him.

There are no other options.

There are nuances, but fundamentally it's collectivism or individualism, which is to say Marxism or Libertarianism.

Trying to leaven collectivism with dribs and drabs of Libertarianism is nothing more than pointless pandering to the proletariat because in every iteration of collectivism the ultimate authority to determine everything about the lives of the citizenry lies with the collective. If the collective deigns to visit a boon on the individual, it's always granted with the ultimate caveat that it's a gift of the collective that may be revoked at the will of the collective.

In Libertarianism the rights of the individual are unalienable and where the desire of the collective collides with the rights of the individual, the collective must give way to the individual.

Only in that manner is liberty real. Anything else is a sham.

[JimC]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

[cronus]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

occams razor...

[Hermit]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

occams razor...

Actually, I do give a shit about some things, but I definitely don't give a shit about Seth's monochrome views in general and his lolbertardian fantasies in particular. So, put that razor away.

As for Australia, it would still be exclusively inhabited by no more than around half a million Aborigines who managed to survive on this continent in amazingly stable communities and tribes for at least 40,000 years. The current opposition to migrants and asylum seekers is a case of descendants of earlier migrants putting up the "no vacancy" sign to later ones.

It has happened in waves. There was significant opposition to the influx of non- Anglo-Saxons, particularly from Italy and Greece between the late 1940s and 1950s, but without them the huge Snowy River Hydroelectric system could not have been built. There would have been no green grocers, corner shops or milk bars. Our knowledge of literature would have been limited to the works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Joyce and Pam Ayres. In the 1970s and 80s came a tide of Vietnamese boat people. Same reaction, but this time joined by a throng of Australian born descendants of Italian and Greek born parents. A lot of our neurosurgeons, paediatricians and other doctors practising their craft in Australian hospitals and private practices are Vietnamese boat people, as is the recently appointed governor of South Australia. Now we are fighting off a wave of refugees from conflict-torn regions in the Middle East and Asia with unprecedented ferocity, cruelty and brutality. Looks like we are extremely slow to learn.

[cronus]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

occams razor...

Actually, I do give a shit about some things, but I definitely don't give a shit about Seth's monochrome views in general and his lolbertardian fantasies in particular. So, put that razor away.

As for Australia, it would still be exclusively inhabited by no more than around half a million Aborigines who managed to survive on this continent in amazingly stable communities and tribes for at least 40,000 years. The current opposition to migrants and asylum seekers is a case of descendants of earlier migrants putting up the "no vacancy" sign to later ones.

It has happened in waves. There was significant opposition to the influx of non- Anglo-Saxons, particularly from Italy and Greece between the late 1940s and 1950s, but without them the huge Snowy River Hydroelectric system could not have been built. There would have been no green grocers, corner shops or milk bars. Our knowledge of literature would have been limited to the works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Joyce and Pam Ayres. In the 1970s and 80s came a tide of Vietnamese boat people. Same reaction, but this time joined by a throng of Australian born descendants of Italian and Greek born parents. A lot of our neurosurgeons, paediatricians and other doctors practising their craft in Australian hospitals and private practices are Vietnamese boat people, as is the recently appointed governor of South Australia. Now we are fighting off a wave of refugees from conflict-torn regions in the Middle East and Asia with unprecedented ferocity, cruelty and brutality. Looks like we are extremely slow to learn.

...too many...as with mice so with men. They have their season and quickly die away.

[Svartalf]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

occams razor...

[Seth]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

I wouldn't expect a Marxist to do so. That's why they are Marxists, they are unable to see beyond their own cupidinous desire to spend other people's money.

[mistermack]

Fine, as long as you realise that in the real world, none of us give a shit about your libertarian fantasy land...

occams razor...

Actually, I do give a shit about some things, but I definitely don't give a shit about Seth's monochrome views in general and his lolbertardian fantasies in particular. So, put that razor away.

As for Australia, it would still be exclusively inhabited by no more than around half a million Aborigines who managed to survive on this continent in amazingly stable communities and tribes for at least 40,000 years. The current opposition to migrants and asylum seekers is a case of descendants of earlier migrants putting up the "no vacancy" sign to later ones.

It has happened in waves. There was significant opposition to the influx of non- Anglo-Saxons, particularly from Italy and Greece between the late 1940s and 1950s, but without them the huge Snowy River Hydroelectric system could not have been built. There would have been no green grocers, corner shops or milk bars. Our knowledge of literature would have been limited to the works of Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Joyce and Pam Ayres. In the 1970s and 80s came a tide of Vietnamese boat people. Same reaction, but this time joined by a throng of Australian born descendants of Italian and Greek born parents. A lot of our neurosurgeons, paediatricians and other doctors practising their craft in Australian hospitals and private practices are Vietnamese boat people, as is the recently appointed governor of South Australia. Now we are fighting off a wave of refugees from conflict-torn regions in the Middle East and Asia with unprecedented ferocity, cruelty and brutality. Looks like we are extremely slow to learn.

Hermit, all your post means is that immigration has been good for the immigrants. Nobody disputes that. It's not been so great for the original inhabitants. Even now, after all these years.

I agree, skilled immigration like surgeons is good for everybody, except the country that they are leaving. (ever think of them?)
If the abbos had just allowed a few highly skilled immigrants in, life would be just dandy for them now.
It's unskilled immigration that always depresses the conditions for the poor.

In any case, Australia is fairly underpopulated, in comparison to most of the world.
You don't have astronomical prices for a small plot of land over there, except in the most desirable corners.
The UK is full. Over-full. By a long way. People don't come here for the wide-open spaces. They come to take jobs, which would otherwise be available to the UK residents.

[Hermit]

Hermit, all your post means is that immigration has been good for the immigrants.

Read the post again with this in mind: The current opposition to migrants and asylum seekers is a case of descendants of earlier migrants putting up the "no vacancy" sign to later ones. That is the intended meaning of it. I also quite intentionally began that topic with "As for Australia". The mileage in other countries may vary, though the same dynamic is somewhat obscured due to the longer time span of their migration history and the fact that some previous cultures have become totally extinct.

I agree, skilled immigration like surgeons is good for everybody, except the country that they are leaving.

The surgeons I referred to have been either wholly or mostly educated in Australia. Many of them arrived as children of peasants.

In any case, Australia is fairly underpopulated, in comparison to most of the world.

It looks fairly underpopulated for the exact same reason that most of it is about as habitable as the Gobi desert.

You don't have astronomical prices for a small plot of land over there, except in the most desirable corners.

Well, acreage in most of Australia's deserts and semi-arid regions are dirt cheap. This is mainly due to the fact that they basically unfit for supporting human life. No surprise that you pay fuck-all for a square mile of scrub when each hectare of it won't be enough to sustain one sheep. The situation of inhabitable land, chiefly on the east coast, is different. Ten years ago I sold a small, single story, two bedroom terrace sitting on 90 square metres of one of the less salubrious suburbs of Sydney for 526,000 dollars. If I wanted to buy it back today, a million would not be enough.

Next time you feel the urge to mouth off, please inform yourself first about whatever topic you wish to comment on. That way you won't give the impression of being an ignorant buffoon.

[mistermack]

Hermit, that's a dumb post.

Don't you understand the words "except in the most desirable corners" ?

Please engage brain before operating gob.

[Hermit]

Dumb post?

Most of Australia is not habitable, and land there is cheap. The few bits that are habitable are fucking expensive. Those are rather obvious facts. What is not at all obvious is why you alluded to those facts.

Saying that only desirable corners are expensive is a load of crap anyway. Less desirable corners of habitable areas are disgustingly expensive as well. On average, Australia's housing affordability is worse than that of the UK, Japan and the US (among other countries) precisely because so little of the continent is habitable. Linkypoo