Why do conservatives think that...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


I find your use of that term for members of my own ethnic group to be highly offensive.

And I find your characterization of white people as inherently predisposed to resenting/hating Hispanics as highly offensive.

EDIT: by the way, I hope I got your attention. I'll edit it out so that I don't hit anybody I wasn't aiming at, but you should pay attention as to what you're suggesting. When it hits the point where you imply that Hispanic immigration to the US is going to cause a nativist backlash of violent repression, then I begin to question your rationality.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ecthy


How were the liberation of the Netherlands and "much of Italy" (I'd like some specification from you here) relevant in that war? Any person with a proper grasp of history would know those weren't the important fronts were the war was ended. Note that "participating" in those campaigns doesn't make Canada relevant.

Juno beach, shock troops - that's all of rather tactical nature. The decisions were made on a bigger level you know.

The Canadians played a major role in freeing up the mouth of the river Scheldt. That's quite relevant.

[Agathon]

Re: Why do conservatives think that...

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
the government can "manage" migration better than the market?

Except for those who call for a total ban on immigration, those who wish to restrict immigration generally want the gubmint to decide (usually by prioritising highly skilled individuals) who gets in and who doesn't.

I thought conservatives were convinced of the government's inability to intelligently intervene in the labour market? If they're smart enough to figure out what the "economy needs" in terms of external labour supply then why not just have them set wages and prices too?

This assumes that conservatives are rational. Libertarians would probably argue for unrestricted immigration, but conservatives (probably unconsciously) argue for free markets and restricted immigration because both are factors in hierarchical societies. Libertarians are at least consistent in their particular craziness.

Having a free market (or at least the kind of markets that we have) tends to produce an economically stratified society. Conservatives like that. Restricting immigration keeps "them" at manageable levels. If there is any thread holding the two together it is anti-egalitarianism.

-------------------------------------

But there are good reasons for restricting immigration. A free market in labour might sound nice, but may cause market failures. The part of our economy that is planned rather than market based would find it more difficult to deal with the influx of immigrants. It's all very well to deny immigrants welfare payments, but the point of welfare is that it benefits those who pay for it as well as those who receive it. In part, welfare is simply paying people to get them off the street.

Similarly, if we deny immigrants access to the health care system, then there will be an increase in communicable diseases and people dying needlessly, and most people don't really like the idea of living in such a country.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ecthy


How were the liberation of the Netherlands and "much of Italy" (I'd like some specification from you here) relevant in that war? Any person with a proper grasp of history would know those weren't the important fronts were the war was ended. Note that "participating" in those campaigns doesn't make Canada relevant.

Juno beach, shock troops - that's all of rather tactical nature. The decisions were made on a bigger level you know.

The Canadians, along with other Commonwealth soldiers, did a great deal in both World Wars. I'm not one to glorify militarism, but you can visit any small town in these countries and find a small memorial to the local men who were shipped off to the other side of the world and died there.

While WWII was largely won on the Eastern Front, these troops fought on the important Western Front and in Italy and Africa which were major contributions to the Allied victory.

[Colonâ„¢]

Denying immigrants access to health care with epidemics as a result is not a market failure, but bad policy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Denying immigrants access to health care with epidemics as a result is not a market failure, but bad policy.

It's a market failure because communicable diseases have negative externalities. That's one of the reasons we have public health care and mandatory vaccinations.

If it wasn't a market failure, then immigrants without access to public health care would create a market for health insurance that would work to eliminate communicable diseases. But there's no reason to think that would work any better than if we just privatized the whole heath system.

There's a whole host of things, like literacy, which are subject to market failure, and which would introduce major inefficiencies were we to allow unrestricted immigration.

[KrazyHorse]

While there are certainly negative externalities to communicable diseases, I don't think you can claim that this in itself justifies the whole public health care system. The level of spending needed to alleviate these externalities is far lower than what we've committed to spending on health care. The major justification for this has to be utilitarian/egalitarian...

[Jon Miller]

Most social spending is done to keep the plebeians from engaging in violent revolution.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

There is that train of thought, but I doubt it's true.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: Cali

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And how much do you think the average Mexican immigrant has? And where do you get that number?

Mexican society is EXTREMELY segregated by race. The upper classes are almost exclusively white, the lower classes are almost exclusives native, and the middle is... in the middle. The Mexicans tend to go by people's looks; if you look white then they consider you white, if you look native then you get treated like a native. Simple as that and there are no calculations of percentages.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
There is that train of thought, but I doubt it's true.

OK, the base reasoning is. I could believe that currently the main reason for social spending is for votes.

JM

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
While there are certainly negative externalities to communicable diseases, I don't think you can claim that this in itself justifies the whole public health care system. The level of spending needed to alleviate these externalities is far lower than what we've committed to spending on health care. The major justification for this has to be utilitarian/egalitarian...

I agree: hence me saying "one of the reasons". In the case of the parts of the health system that aren't concerned with externalities, I think a lot of it comes down to market failures with regard to insurance schemes (which are notorious). But in the end the rest is simply the preferences of most citizens not to see their fellows suffer, and the failure of private charity to fulfil that goal. Socrates has an interesting argument in the Crito about the obligations you accrue by being born into such a system (although public provision of services in Athens was rather crude).

But it is an interesting question with regard to immigration. I had to read some stuff on the ethics of immigration recently and most of it was very poor. In these cases the left were arguing for unrestricted immigration and the right for heavy restrictions, but I don't think either side had really thought it through. It seems plain to me that immigration should be restricted on grounds of efficiency. But you could just as easily solve the problem by expanding agreements on convertible government services between states, much in the way the European Union does.

I wonder if there is a persuasive argument for choosing expansion over restriction. It seems to me the left would have to choose expansion and the right restriction.

[Ecthy]

Agathon, Colon: please.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Agathon, Colon: please.

That'll larn me. It was supposed to be a semicolon.

Are you one of those grammar Germans?

[Ecthy]

I was talking to you two. It's not your business to enter a discussion when I'm lecturing KH on the irrelevancy of his country.