6 ms·

> Increased immigration is just another one of the public subsidies to which corporations think they're entitled. Removal of an artificial barrier isn't a subs

> Increased immigration is just another one of the public subsidies to which corporations think they're entitled. Removal of an artificial barrier isn't a subsidy.

cantankerous 13y ago
Corporations themselves are artificial. Looks like an artificial thing wants a change in another artificial thing, then. Either way, the change has externalized costs that the corporations themselves won't have to bear in a society that upholds the laws that allow them to exist in the first place. To me it sure sounds like a subsidy.
rayiner 13y ago
First: selective removal of a barrier that applies to everyone is indeed a form of subsidy. I highly doubt American companies are asking for completely open borders, allowing citizenship to anyone who can physically make it to the U.S. Instead they want us to keep most people out, but let in specific people that help their specific bottom lines. Second: immigration limits are not an artificial barrier. One of the basic purposes of a government is to establish and defend borders. Allowing immigration is an affirmative action on the part of the existing citizenship of a country to admit new members into its fold. It's an affirmative action to not just admit those new members, but to integrate them culturally, allow them to participate in the public life of the country, and allow them a voice in political affairs that affect all citizens, new and old. It's a commitment to defending them in case of attack and extending to them and their progeny, in perpetuity, the essential privileges of being a citizen of the country.
- Jayschwa 13y ago
  > immigration limits are not an artificial barrier. One of the basic purposes of a government is to establish and defend borders. I think this is probably the kernel of our differing views. I do view them as artificial. My hope is that, in the future, an individual's ability to relocate becomes more a function of their means and less a function of nation-state legality. I have some anarchist strands woven in my ideology ;-)
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Yes, from an anarchist principle my statements likely don't make sense. But corporate America isn't run by anarchists. They want a government, they want the enforcement of contracts, they want enforcement of property rights, they even want defense of the borders, mostly. They just want exceptions to all of the above in specific cases when it benefits them.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > But corporate America isn't run by anarchists. They want a government ...and government of the people by the corporations and for the corporations, shall not perish from the Earth?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > immigration limits are not an artificial barrier. One of the basic purposes of a government is to establish and defend borders. Even if one accepts the second sentence, for the sake of argument, it in no way supports the first. Even if it might support the claim that immigration limits are a policy reasonably related to a "basic purpose" of government, it doesn't in any way challenge the idea that they are still an "artificial barrier".
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Say the government allowed the big banks to skim a little off the top of each account, legally. Since governments are artificial constructs, and the property rights they create are artificial constructs, you could say: "well that's not a subsidy or special favor, it's just the lifting of an artificial barrier." That's right in a narrow technical sense, but not a very useful use of the word "artificial." Rather, because enforcing property rights are deeply intertwined with the purpose of government as we understand them today, it's more sensible to think of those barriers as not being artificial but rather naturally implied by the existence of government.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Say the government allowed the big banks to skim a little off the top of each account, legally. Since governments are artificial constructs, and the property rights they create are artificial constructs, you could say: "well that's not a subsidy or special favor, it's just the lifting of an artificial barrier." That's right in a narrow technical sense No, its not, but the ways that it is wrong have nothing to do with the "artificial barrier" issue: Well, I could accurately say its the lifting of an artificial barrier, sure. I couldn't accurately say its not a special favor, since its a privilege granted to select entities in particular circumstances, nor could I accurately say that its not a subsidy, since it is directing resources currently held by one group and allowing them to be used by another. The fact that its an "artificial barrier" is irrelevant to whether it is in other categories that are not mutually exclusive with "artificial barrier". > Rather, because enforcing property rights are deeply intertwined with the purpose of government as we understand them today, it's more sensible to think of those barriers as not being artificial but rather naturally implied by the existence of government. No, its better to address issues like "special favor" or "subsidy" that are completely orthogonal to the "artificial barrier" categorization without reference to that irrelevant categorization. If you want to make the case that the specific immigration limits currently in use are an appropriate use of government power, its probably better to do that than to argue about whether they are (as they clearly are) an artificial barrier to the free movement of people and free commerce.
001sky 13y ago
This statement is non-sensical. The concept of citizen is inherently bound. Similarly, the concept of citizen is inherently a human (political) one. As a result, your premis is flawed, and your allusion to economic analysis perfunctory (at best).
- Jayschwa 13y ago
  Alice and Bob wish to associate in some way, but they live on separate planets. The spaceship tech required to span the distance is either prohibitively expensive or hasn't been invented yet. This is a natural barrier. Alice and Bob wish to associate in some way, but Eve forbids it and she'll beat them up if they disobey. This is an artificial barrier.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    But is a dam on a 10 cm deep river an artificial barrier to swimming downstream?

> Increased immigration is just another one of the public subsidies to which corporations think they're entitled. Removal of an artificial barrier isn't a subsidy.

cantankerous 13y ago

Corporations themselves are artificial. Looks like an artificial thing wants a change in another artificial thing, then. Either way, the change has externalized costs that the corporations themselves won't have to bear in a society that upholds the laws that allow them to exist in the first place. To me it sure sounds like a subsidy.

rayiner 13y ago

First: selective removal of a barrier that applies to everyone is indeed a form of subsidy. I highly doubt American companies are asking for completely open borders, allowing citizenship to anyone who can physically make it to the U.S. Instead they want us to keep most people out, but let in specific people that help their specific bottom lines. Second: immigration limits are not an artificial barrier. One of the basic purposes of a government is to establish and defend borders. Allowing immigration is an affirmative action on the part of the existing citizenship of a country to admit new members into its fold. It's an affirmative action to not just admit those new members, but to integrate them culturally, allow them to participate in the public life of the country, and allow them a voice in political affairs that affect all citizens, new and old. It's a commitment to defending them in case of attack and extending to them and their progeny, in perpetuity, the essential privileges of being a citizen of the country.

Jayschwa 13y ago
> immigration limits are not an artificial barrier. One of the basic purposes of a government is to establish and defend borders. I think this is probably the kernel of our differing views. I do view them as artificial. My hope is that, in the future, an individual's ability to relocate becomes more a function of their means and less a function of nation-state legality. I have some anarchist strands woven in my ideology ;-)
- rayiner 13y ago
  Yes, from an anarchist principle my statements likely don't make sense. But corporate America isn't run by anarchists. They want a government, they want the enforcement of contracts, they want enforcement of property rights, they even want defense of the borders, mostly. They just want exceptions to all of the above in specific cases when it benefits them.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > But corporate America isn't run by anarchists. They want a government ...and government of the people by the corporations and for the corporations, shall not perish from the Earth?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> immigration limits are not an artificial barrier. One of the basic purposes of a government is to establish and defend borders. Even if one accepts the second sentence, for the sake of argument, it in no way supports the first. Even if it might support the claim that immigration limits are a policy reasonably related to a "basic purpose" of government, it doesn't in any way challenge the idea that they are still an "artificial barrier".
- rayiner 13y ago
  Say the government allowed the big banks to skim a little off the top of each account, legally. Since governments are artificial constructs, and the property rights they create are artificial constructs, you could say: "well that's not a subsidy or special favor, it's just the lifting of an artificial barrier." That's right in a narrow technical sense, but not a very useful use of the word "artificial." Rather, because enforcing property rights are deeply intertwined with the purpose of government as we understand them today, it's more sensible to think of those barriers as not being artificial but rather naturally implied by the existence of government.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Say the government allowed the big banks to skim a little off the top of each account, legally. Since governments are artificial constructs, and the property rights they create are artificial constructs, you could say: "well that's not a subsidy or special favor, it's just the lifting of an artificial barrier." That's right in a narrow technical sense No, its not, but the ways that it is wrong have nothing to do with the "artificial barrier" issue: Well, I could accurately say its the lifting of an artificial barrier, sure. I couldn't accurately say its not a special favor, since its a privilege granted to select entities in particular circumstances, nor could I accurately say that its not a subsidy, since it is directing resources currently held by one group and allowing them to be used by another. The fact that its an "artificial barrier" is irrelevant to whether it is in other categories that are not mutually exclusive with "artificial barrier". > Rather, because enforcing property rights are deeply intertwined with the purpose of government as we understand them today, it's more sensible to think of those barriers as not being artificial but rather naturally implied by the existence of government. No, its better to address issues like "special favor" or "subsidy" that are completely orthogonal to the "artificial barrier" categorization without reference to that irrelevant categorization. If you want to make the case that the specific immigration limits currently in use are an appropriate use of government power, its probably better to do that than to argue about whether they are (as they clearly are) an artificial barrier to the free movement of people and free commerce.

001sky 13y ago

This statement is non-sensical. The concept of citizen is inherently bound. Similarly, the concept of citizen is inherently a human (political) one. As a result, your premis is flawed, and your allusion to economic analysis perfunctory (at best).

Jayschwa 13y ago
Alice and Bob wish to associate in some way, but they live on separate planets. The spaceship tech required to span the distance is either prohibitively expensive or hasn't been invented yet. This is a natural barrier. Alice and Bob wish to associate in some way, but Eve forbids it and she'll beat them up if they disobey. This is an artificial barrier.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  But is a dam on a 10 cm deep river an artificial barrier to swimming downstream?