6 ms·

There are many arguments made to support the case of global open borders. The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the inf

by chipsy 11y ago

There are many arguments made to support the case of global open borders. The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down; however, the megacities of the developing world are a case study in what actually happens in such a situation, and although it presents major challenges, it's not all bad. Cities and economies benefit when they get bigger, even as extreme dysfunctions creep in. However, it's ultimately moot as long as leaders look towards questions of immigration, nationality, and origin as useful wedge issues.

sillygeese 11y ago
It's interesting how we normal people discuss and debate the merits and justifications for various policies that we have no say in. We automatically assume that our Dear Leaders are doing the same, weighing the pros and cons of whatever decisions they're making, and trying to choose wisely. But in reality, they're just pursuing their personal gain at our expense. For example, a free trade agreement is really simple: just "agree" to let people trade freely. Can you guess if people would like that? But politicians want their bribes and various business conglomerates want obstacles to competing with them. Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? See how this works? Does it look like our hallowed leaders are working in our interest? Do you think they have a reason to? I mean, if they just get out of the way and let people produce wealth and trade freely, what's in it for them?
- Nursie 11y ago
  >> Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? I'm sorry but this ignores the converse side of this. Our system of laws and protections has been built up over many years and if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place. That reason may be buried in layers of legal cruft. It may be obscured entirely. It may not even be relevant any more. Perhaps that means that laws should be reviewed more often, but it doesn't mean throwing out the rulebook in its entirety and then going on to repeat the same mistakes that lead us to have the rules in the first place. >> Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel.
  - sillygeese 11y ago
    > if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow? Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing. That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic. So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services? > This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel. It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts! "Dear Customer. Because lots of ordinary people live in this building and have to wake up early, it's important that you behave nicely and don't make noise after 22:00. If you find this unacceptable, we can't rent this apartment to you". Is that so difficult? Or do we genuinely need some distant, nebulous organization to prevent people from being able to voluntarily accept terms and trades like that?
    - Nursie 11y ago
      >> That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow? Well there was, for instance, the rule brought in a few years ago in London that minicabs have to be called from a registered business, they can't just hang around soliciting for business. This was in direct response to women being picked up by unregistered drivers and raped. That's just one example of regulation that has sprung up to protect the public. >> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing. It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily. >> That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic. Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really. I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die. It is absolutely not good enough to leave this to the market. It is absolutely not good enough to say that if people get poisoned then the business will fail. Firstly because people already got poisoned and secondly because we have a whole heap of history to show us that dodgy operators keep going! >> So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services? I'm not necessarily taking on Uber specifically, but your underlying point that all regulation is bad. I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason. If Uber are falling foul of regulations like this then as I said, it's a good reason to take a look at what might be wrong with the regulations, not throw them out completely just to facilitate the new cab company in town. >> It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts! Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time! Never mind that this time they caused hell to the other residents. And the next group do it too. But it's OK because you won't rent to them next time either. And never mind that having a never-ending stream of new people in and out of the building fundamentally changes the nature of a residential block. No, fuck everyone else and what they wanted out of a place to live. This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored. That's why prices are cheaper, that's why there are problems with these businesses flouting laws that protect people. I also find it very interesting that you chose to say this - "That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors." You clearly have a preconceived notion that all opposition to these sorts of businesses comes from their competitors. It does not. I don't give a shit about taxi medallions or whether hotels don't like the competition. I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.
ectoplasm 11y ago
Another concern is a lower per capita federal tax base.
gioele 11y ago
> The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down I always wondered: are the people in the US asking for the establishment of closed borders to prevent people from moving from the poor Mississippi to the rich California?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  We're not all the same and people aren't interchangeable. Some cultures think owning women is a good thing. Some cultures think homosexuality is a crime. And some cultures don't want to let those cultures have influence over their lives.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

by chipsy 11y ago

sillygeese 11y ago

It's interesting how we normal people discuss and debate the merits and justifications for various policies that we have no say in. We automatically assume that our Dear Leaders are doing the same, weighing the pros and cons of whatever decisions they're making, and trying to choose wisely. But in reality, they're just pursuing their personal gain at our expense. For example, a free trade agreement is really simple: just "agree" to let people trade freely. Can you guess if people would like that? But politicians want their bribes and various business conglomerates want obstacles to competing with them. Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? See how this works? Does it look like our hallowed leaders are working in our interest? Do you think they have a reason to? I mean, if they just get out of the way and let people produce wealth and trade freely, what's in it for them?

Nursie 11y ago
>> Lots of people are happy with Uber's service, and lots of other ordinary people are happy to drive for them. Who benefits from Uber being banned? I'm sorry but this ignores the converse side of this. Our system of laws and protections has been built up over many years and if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place. That reason may be buried in layers of legal cruft. It may be obscured entirely. It may not even be relevant any more. Perhaps that means that laws should be reviewed more often, but it doesn't mean throwing out the rulebook in its entirety and then going on to repeat the same mistakes that lead us to have the rules in the first place. >> Lots of people are happy using AirBnB's, and others are happy renting their apartments for extra income. Who benefits from AirBnB being banned? This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel.
- sillygeese 11y ago
  > if there are rules that prevent an Uber-like service from starting up then there was probably a bloody good reason they were put in place That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow? Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing. That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic. So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services? > This one's easy - people who live in a residential block who didn't sign up to live in a hotel. It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts! "Dear Customer. Because lots of ordinary people live in this building and have to wake up early, it's important that you behave nicely and don't make noise after 22:00. If you find this unacceptable, we can't rent this apartment to you". Is that so difficult? Or do we genuinely need some distant, nebulous organization to prevent people from being able to voluntarily accept terms and trades like that?
  - Nursie 11y ago
    >> That's quite an assumption. Care to back that up somehow? Well there was, for instance, the rule brought in a few years ago in London that minicabs have to be called from a registered business, they can't just hang around soliciting for business. This was in direct response to women being picked up by unregistered drivers and raped. That's just one example of regulation that has sprung up to protect the public. >> Consider that free(er) competition results in quality increasing and prices decreasing. It can result in a race to the bottom just as easily. >> That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors. It's extremely simple, and axiomatic. Pleasing customers is not the be-all and end-all of ... anything really. I like to use the example of hygiene ratings and checks in restaurants. This is a government function that makes sure people don't die. It is absolutely not good enough to leave this to the market. It is absolutely not good enough to say that if people get poisoned then the business will fail. Firstly because people already got poisoned and secondly because we have a whole heap of history to show us that dodgy operators keep going! >> So when you see that Uber is just one service provider in the market for paid transportation, how do you think it could possibly be better for us that "regulations" prevent Uber from operating, i.e. competing with government-approved taxi services? I'm not necessarily taking on Uber specifically, but your underlying point that all regulation is bad. I gave an example above of a regulation that came in for a reason. If Uber are falling foul of regulations like this then as I said, it's a good reason to take a look at what might be wrong with the regulations, not throw them out completely just to facilitate the new cab company in town. >> It's like, you could have some.. rules about how to behave in rental apartments, and they could even be included in the contracts! Right, behave or we won't rent to you next time! Never mind that this time they caused hell to the other residents. And the next group do it too. But it's OK because you won't rent to them next time either. And never mind that having a never-ending stream of new people in and out of the building fundamentally changes the nature of a residential block. No, fuck everyone else and what they wanted out of a place to live. This is the very kernel of the problem - the negative externalities are ignored. That's why prices are cheaper, that's why there are problems with these businesses flouting laws that protect people. I also find it very interesting that you chose to say this - "That's how it works when providers have to please their customers more than their competitors." You clearly have a preconceived notion that all opposition to these sorts of businesses comes from their competitors. It does not. I don't give a shit about taxi medallions or whether hotels don't like the competition. I do give a shit about consumer protection, fire regulations, safety, hygiene requirements, workers rights and many, many other things that have been hard won over many, many years. Things we're not all clamouring to discard for a slightly cheaper cab ride or bed to sleep in.

ectoplasm 11y ago

Another concern is a lower per capita federal tax base.

gioele 11y ago

> The main premise for worry comes from waves of destitute migrants overwhelming the infrastructure and natural carrying capacity of rich cities and dragging them down I always wondered: are the people in the US asking for the establishment of closed borders to prevent people from moving from the poor Mississippi to the rich California?

merpnderp 11y ago
We're not all the same and people aren't interchangeable. Some cultures think owning women is a good thing. Some cultures think homosexuality is a crime. And some cultures don't want to let those cultures have influence over their lives.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]