Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
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.
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.
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.
If millions of people move to the Netherlands, and the Netherlands is therefore overcrowded (which it might be already), the Netherlands will not be a nice place to live. And so people will move away from the Netherlands. This is exactly the mechanism that creates a balance in a world without borders.
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.
I'm not moving anyone.
What about housing, work, money, food, etc, but also diseases, language and other things that will cause problems.[...]
What about them?
And there are more reasons for sure, which I have forgotten, so enough reasons why mass migration is a really bad idea for everyone.
I'm not advocating any mass migration. I'm just saying why migration limits are inhumane.
That's why we send our army to other countries to help fight these people, or try to help.
Oh yes, the people of Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya are now in a far better situation. We really helped them. Jesus, that you even believe this.
And get them all overhere won't change it either.
Once again, I'm not advocating for that.
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 ...
This is your action plan to help poverty out of the world? Really?
The point is that the left side is often claiming moral high ground because 'they want to share the wealth with the less fortunates'. The point is that almost ALL Dutch people are part of the rich people. The 1% to use a word that is popular these days. There is no principal or ideological motivation for restricting solidarity to one country.
Just answer me this question, Charles: Do you defend the principle of Fortress Europe? (I'm not talking about the inhumane outcome of that policy (Lampedusa etc.), I'm talking about the principle behind it.) If that is the case, do you defend the fence between the United States and Mexico?
(edited)
If millions of people move to the Netherlands, and the Netherlands is therefore overcrowded (which it might be already), the Netherlands will not be a nice place to live. And so people will move away from the Netherlands. This is exactly the mechanism that creates a balance in a world without borders.
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.
I'm not moving anyone.
What about housing, work, money, food, etc, but also diseases, language and other things that will cause problems.[...]
What about them?
And there are more reasons for sure, which I have forgotten, so enough reasons why mass migration is a really bad idea for everyone.
I'm not advocating any mass migration. I'm just saying why migration limits are inhumane.
That's why we send our army to other countries to help fight these people, or try to help.
Oh yes, the people of Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya are now in a far better situation. We really helped them. Jesus, that you even believe this.
And get them all overhere won't change it either.
Once again, I'm not advocating for that.
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 ...
This is your action plan to help poverty out of the world? Really?
The point is that the left side is often claiming moral high ground because 'they want to share the wealth with the less fortunates'. The point is that almost ALL Dutch people are part of the rich people. The 1% to use a word that is popular these days. There is no principal or ideological motivation for restricting solidarity to one country.
Just answer me this question, Charles: Do you defend the principle of Fortress Europe? (I'm not talking about the inhumane outcome of that policy (Lampedusa etc.), I'm talking about the principle behind it.) If that is the case, do you defend the fence between the United States and Mexico?
(edited)
As borders define the ownership of a country, thus the property of public lands are owned by a population living in this country, then when you open borders, you should open individual borders too and let share your own property to other people to let them able to find hapiness no ? Why only public lands ? No property at all ! Let's go Levi ! ;-)
I would also suggest, that if somebody wants to be richer, than the others, people could make donations and create funds for his needs. :)
A country has no ownership. People have ownership. Is there somewhere a document stating that the citizens owning the land give away some property rights to the state? No.
If there is a group of people who each own a piece of land, and they want to build a wall around their property to avoid people entering their property, no problem. They are the rightful owner, in contrary to the state (because the state is - by definition - public and not private; if it was private, it wouldn't be called the state).
But yes, left libertarianism is interesting to think about. The fundamental question is whether property rights exist or not. Because I consider everyone the owner of at least his or her own body, for me, ownership does exist.
If there is a group of people who each own a piece of land, and they want to build a wall around their property to avoid people entering their property, no problem. They are the rightful owner, in contrary to the state (because the state is - by definition - public and not private; if it was private, it wouldn't be called the state).
But yes, left libertarianism is interesting to think about. The fundamental question is whether property rights exist or not. Because I consider everyone the owner of at least his or her own body, for me, ownership does exist.
The free market will evaluate whether this is a good suggestion or not. I think I know the answer.
I told you what I think of it and you know you and I don't agree on this. Just one of those things: You seem to really think it is ok and normal to many people move to a country and when this country becomes unliveable non will come anymore and/or even move again, leaving behind a destroyed country .... strange, but looking at your ideas I'm not surpriced this is what you think is ok and normal.
Anyway, this was it, I don't discuss this any futher with you as you and I both know how this will end, as I don't believe in your ludicrous unrealistic and utopian ideas.
Anyway, this was it, I don't discuss this any futher with you as you and I both know how this will end, as I don't believe in your ludicrous unrealistic and utopian ideas.
Just answer me this question, Charles: Do you defend the principle of Fortress Europe? (I'm not talking about the inhumane outcome of that policy (Lampedusa etc.), I'm talking about the principle behind it.) If that is the case, do you defend the fence between the United States and Mexico?
Is it such a hard question to answer?
Edit: Also, this is not about believing in my ideology or not. It is about seeing the inconsistency in your own political ideas.
(edited)
Is it such a hard question to answer?
Edit: Also, this is not about believing in my ideology or not. It is about seeing the inconsistency in your own political ideas.
(edited)
It's not just answering 1 question, it's giving you another reason to start posting the same nonsense as you have posted so many times already, again. You are not someone new on the international and Dutch forum, I know you by now and how you start new 'discussions' when ever possible. So I'm not going to feed you, I'm not stupid.
Fortunately, free market will never exist as you would like, but I think I know how would it evaluate your idea to base poor people's healthcare on donations.
Of course in your world open borders wouldn't cause too much further harm. Poor people from 3rd world countries wouldn't be motivated to come to Europe, as they wouldn't have rights here either.
Of course in your world open borders wouldn't cause too much further harm. Poor people from 3rd world countries wouldn't be motivated to come to Europe, as they wouldn't have rights here either.
Look, I'm not going to reply on your answer to the question. I just want to know your stance on that issue.
Of course in your world open borders wouldn't cause too much further harm. Poor people from 3rd world countries wouldn't be motivated to come to Europe, as they wouldn't have rights here either.
Of course they would have rights. The same as the indigenous population. Basic human rights. The right on freedom. The right on free speech. The right on their own body. The right to pursue happiness.
Of course they would have rights. The same as the indigenous population. Basic human rights. The right on freedom. The right on free speech. The right on their own body. The right to pursue happiness.
In your world there would be:
- no taxes -> no healthcare -> no right to health
- no taxes -> no education -> no knowledge about your rights -> practically no rights
- no taxes -> no police -> no laws -> no rights
You could only buy these rights, but poor people have no money, so they wouldn't (or partially don't) have rights.
- no taxes -> no healthcare -> no right to health
- no taxes -> no education -> no knowledge about your rights -> practically no rights
- no taxes -> no police -> no laws -> no rights
You could only buy these rights, but poor people have no money, so they wouldn't (or partially don't) have rights.
Edit: No, no, no. This is not the point. I retreat my answer to your misinterpretation of classical liberalism. I just wanted to show the inconsistency of national collectivism. I already know you don't understand classical liberalism. Why do you continue to show your lack of knowledge of my ideology when the discussion is something else?
(edited)
(edited)
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.
It is not different, but we can only deal with the situation in our own country. And simply because other goverments don't take care of there poor civillians doenst mean we have to do that too.
Opening up all the borders means only more people in this country and then nobody can't be helped anymore so I prefer that some people get helped instead of almost none.
And by the way that suggesting that people should donate and create funds for poor people...do you really believe that kind of fairytail ?
Then I rather have the situation as it is now. It's true you can't help everybody but it's a lot more then when you open up all borders.'I simply don't agree with what you want.
(edited)
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.
It is not different, but we can only deal with the situation in our own country. And simply because other goverments don't take care of there poor civillians doenst mean we have to do that too.
Opening up all the borders means only more people in this country and then nobody can't be helped anymore so I prefer that some people get helped instead of almost none.
And by the way that suggesting that people should donate and create funds for poor people...do you really believe that kind of fairytail ?
Then I rather have the situation as it is now. It's true you can't help everybody but it's a lot more then when you open up all borders.'I simply don't agree with what you want.
(edited)
no public education -> private education -> no right for education, only if you buy it (so no right for the poor)
no public police -> private police (mafia) -> still no laws (enforcement to be precise) -> no rights
About healthcare... well I'm happier that anybody can go to the doctor if he/she gets sick, so people actually have the right to be basically healthy now (of course they can become fat/alcoholic/etc, if they wish). That's what you'd like to take away.
Everything would be possible, for money. Bread and all the rights too. That's why poor people wouldn't have rights. They would have to spend their money on bread.
no public police -> private police (mafia) -> still no laws (enforcement to be precise) -> no rights
About healthcare... well I'm happier that anybody can go to the doctor if he/she gets sick, so people actually have the right to be basically healthy now (of course they can become fat/alcoholic/etc, if they wish). That's what you'd like to take away.
Everything would be possible, for money. Bread and all the rights too. That's why poor people wouldn't have rights. They would have to spend their money on bread.