Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

In a perfect world everybody should have more of the less the same chanches, but I don't think its ever gonna be that way.

I think that Europe has itself enough problems than trying saving whole world.

I'm not saying Europe should do that. I'm just saying we should open up the borders. Everyone in the world should have the opportunity to pursue happiness. If that is reached by coming to Europe, why should we have the right to stop them?

That's a really interesting subject. It's also an issue in which most people are not consistent. There are a lot of Europeans defending the national social security (including unemployment benefits etc.) program, whilst defending Fortress Europe. On the one side, they defend equal (socio-economic) opportunities within the country, but exclude people who were unlucky to be born outside those artificial borders from those opportunities. It seems like they are socialists/collectivists, but only on a national level. The international dimension is totally gone. It's a kind of national socialism. See the irony there?

Of course, I must say there are collectivists/socialists who do oppose Fortress Europe. Those are hippies. One cannot have both an extensive social security program and open borders. The latter will destroy the former.

Apart from that, the problems of Europe are nothing compared to the humanitarian tragedies around the world. Nothing.

Europe has a disgusting attitude.

Well, let's redistribute everything in the whole world then. For 100-years people fought for money, land and power.

Let's give everyone a equal shot and every single human being gets 1 tiny bit of land and a tiny bit of money everybody gets the same amount :p

Because that is what I'm saying... Or what is your point?

No you didn't say that. But theres a small amount of people in this world that gained there money and property in a way you can say maybe that is not fair too.

So either give everyone an equal amount or do nothing. You can't just open all borders around the world just like that without creating alot of chaos...

I think it's even nonsens the open borders between most countries even in Europe simply because the linving standards are way to different.

You could open all border around the world if every country had the same living stardard, wage, social security system and so on and so on. Else it's just creating a lot of chaos.

I don't oppose your idea in general but there will be many things needed if you want to make it a succes instead of chaos and anarchy.

Edit : One could argue that chaos and anarchy aren't bad if that is the outcome but I beg to differ.
(edited)

You can't just open all borders around the world just like that without creating alot of chaos...

What chaos? Yes, there will be a lot of immigration. I do not consider immigration chaos. People move to places where it's good to live.

I think it's even nonsens the open borders between most countries even in Europe simply because the linving standards are way to different.

Why shouldn't the borders be open because of different standards of living?

Because that would destroy the social security system of a country. You may don't have a problem with that is not my problem :p

And it would increase they amount of people without a job. People will be forced to work for less money.
Work conditions will get worse. And again the only one who really profits are they people who have enough money already.

Like we see in factory's in China with people making 60/90 hours a week even leading to people dieing.
(edited)

I'm not saying Europe should do that. I'm just saying we should open up the borders. Everyone in the world should have the opportunity to pursue happiness. If that is reached by coming to Europe, why should we have the right to stop them?

That's a really interesting subject. It's also an issue in which most people are not consistent. There are a lot of Europeans defending the national social security (including unemployment benefits etc.) program, whilst defending Fortress Europe. On the one side, they defend equal (socio-economic) opportunities within the country, but exclude people who were unlucky to be born outside those artificial borders from those opportunities. It seems like they are socialists/collectivists, but only on a national level. The international dimension is totally gone. It's a kind of national socialism. See the irony there?

Of course, I must say there are collectivists/socialists who do oppose Fortress Europe. Those are hippies. One cannot have both an extensive social security program and open borders. The latter will destroy the former.

Apart from that, the problems of Europe are nothing compared to the humanitarian tragedies around the world. Nothing.

Europe has a disgusting attitude.

I agree with you (seriously!!!)

You can perfectly have open borders and health and safety regulations. Why not?

The Dutch healthcare system is already under pressure, and more people, who didn't pay or won't be able to pay for healthcare, will put even more pressure on this system as you can't deny people from healthcare when they get sick. So someone will have to pay for them and that will be us, the ones already paying more and more for their healthcare insurance.

And ofcourse you can have safety regulations with open borders, but this probably will also cost more and more money because certain groups need to be monitored. And with open borders to all countries, a good chance more people with bad intentions or people who are easily influenced to do bad things will come to our country.

(edited)

Yes you can have them, but the question will be how long will they hold before they collapse ?

Because that would destroy the social security system of a country.

Depends on whether it acts as an individual social security (pay for it -> enjoy the benefits) or a state-guaranteed collectivist social security (everybody must have healthcare). The former system can survive, obviously. The latter will be destroyed by opening our borders. And as you know, I am against public healthcare. So, given that one wants to open up the borders, one can only chose for an individual social security system.

And it would increase they amount of people without a job. People will be forced to work for less money.
Work conditions will get worse. And again the only one who really profits are they people who have enough money already.

It would equalize wage differences in the world, yes. You constantly say "there is a big difference in standards of living". The question is: do you wish to reduce that difference or not? If you don't, then indeed, closing up the borders is the way to do it. If you are in favor of socio-economic equality in the world, open up the borders. I have chosen my stance and I'm willing to defend it. Have you done the same?

The Dutch healthcare system is already under pressure, and more people, who didn't pay or won't be able to pay for healthcare, will put even more pressure on this system as you can't deny people from healthcare when they get sick.

We've discussed that on the Dutch forum already. At that time, you didn't want to answer on my remark (which mjakk and others did). You obviously don't see the double standard you're using: on the one side, you don't want to exclude anyone from healthcare, but on the other hand, you exclude everyone who was unlucky to be born outside the Netherlands / Europe (apart from political refugees (who are 'lucky' that they are being prosecuted for political reasons, so they can enjoy the Dutch hospitality) and a certain number of economic refugees). You defend a national socialist position (and no, I don't want to imply that you're a Nazi).

So someone will have to pay for them and that will be us, the ones already paying more and more for their healthcare insurance.

Don't you want to be solidary? Don't you care? ;-)
[This is a joke, to be clear, using arguments some leftists use against me.]

And ofcourse you can have safety regulations with open borders, but this probably will also cost more and more money because certain groups need to be monitored. And with open borders to all countries, a good chance more people with bad intentions or people who are easily influenced to do bad things will come to our country.

It's okay that they attack people, as long as it isn't in the Netherlands? Or what kind of logic are you stating here?

Depends on whether it acts as an individual social security (pay for it -> enjoy the benefits) or a state-guaranteed collectivist social security (everybody must have healthcare). The former system can survive, obviously. The latter will be destroyed by opening our borders. And as you know, I am against public healthcare. So, given that one wants to open up the borders, one can only chose for an individual social security system.

So what about the people who are less fortunate and don't have money for healthcare ? This situation will happen when you open all the borders. So we just let people die because they dont have money ?

I have chosen my stance and I'm willing to defend it. Have you done the same?

Well, in theoretical I would say everybody deserves the same changes and living standards. But the problem in my eyes is how are you going to arrange that ? Even if we open the borders there still will be alot of people who are poor and some people who will be very rich.

Is that a better situation then closed borders and majority of society in that country has an accepteble living standard ? Because if you open the borders in my opinion the difference between rich and poor will only get bigger and bigger.

I don't think the solution is so simple by just opening the borders. Because there always will be rich people that will take advantage of poor people just because the poor people simply hass less money and power and they will be outsmarted. Maybe not in the eyes of the law but that doesnt make it less wrong.

Just to answer you ones, eventhough I know it is completely useless as I most probably can predict your answer looking at the hundreds of previous posts ...

If to many people migrate at the same time to a place/country which is already struggling, all will fall apart over there and then even more people are in problems. Better to help those who need help in their own country so no one have to flee these countries. And also, if all who have money, skills, (higher) education, etc, flee these countries or like you suggest, are all free to come overhere, those country will never ever get any futher and will stay second or third world countries who need help.

So yes, people like you and me are lucky to be born overhere, but we are also able to help others because we have so much, but that's what most don't do. They are lucky to have it all, but to selfish to share and help (or call it differenty as selfish).

You defend a national socialist position

Call it left or whatever you want, as you almost always do. But I call it: to be realistic. You can't just move millions of people in a short while to other countries and expect it won't case any serious problems, not only for those already living in those countries, but also those who move to these countries. What about housing, work, money, food, etc, but also diseases, language and other things that will cause problems. And as I already wrote, not to forget problems caused by those who come overhere with other (bad) intentions, like criminals and terrorists for exampe. But also people who don't move freely, like those who end up in prostitution and modern slavery. And there are more reasons for sure, which I have forgotten, so enough reasons why mass migration is a really bad idea for everyone.

It's okay that they attack people, as long as it isn't in the Netherlands? Or what kind of logic are you stating here?

No, it's never ok ofcourse. That's why we send our army to other countries to help fight these people, or try to help. But the moment these bad people are free to move around, it will become an even bigger mess.

A last word, I feel sorry for those who are born less lucky as I, or I think they are less lucky but I don't know their lives, but some things are the way they are and won't change in a short while, or maybe even never at all. And get them all overhere won't change it either. The sad thing is, there is enough food produced to feed about 12 billion people, but not even half of 7 billion people eat at least 3 meals a day. I can't change this, certainly not alone, but the food industry does but they don't care about this problem, they care about money. And also governments can change things, but to make them agree about the same things is nearly impossible. So, realisticly, I can do the best I can, but that's mostly to make me feel good, it won't have that much effect on this world. If more people would do it then things can start to change. Let's hope that will happen ...

So what about the people who are less fortunate and don't have money for healthcare ? This situation will happen when you open all the borders. So we just let people die because they dont have money ?

I can only suggest what we should do. Make donations, create funds for those in needs.

Also, I don't understand this question. People are dying now in Africa because they don't have healthcare. Why is that any different from your described situation? We are letting people die because they live across some arbitrary line.

Well, in theoretical I would say everybody deserves the same changes and living standards. But the problem in my eyes is how are you going to arrange that ?

Not. I'm not going to arrange that. Nobody should.

Even if we open the borders there still will be alot of people who are poor and some people who will be very rich.

Of course. I don't see the relevance. My point is not that we must equalize wealth and standards of living. My point is that we should let people try to increase their wealth and standard of living.