3 ms·

>If you want to alter the H1B program, I'm all for auctioning off work permits. Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that

>If you want to alter the H1B program, I'm all for auctioning off work permits. Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market. >Similarly, a black person who attends Howard University and then works as a plastic surgeon for rich white women has also had his investment paid for by the black community, but the first world is getting the whole benefit. * Black Americans (whom I assume you are referring to) live in the first world, which reaps the benefit of their education it paid for. * Education for black Americans is largely paid for by the state and indirectly paid for and supported by citizens of the United States. I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not. Let me again point out - you've brought up a bunch of empirical criteria. Suppose the situation changes and black Americans suddenly satisfy those empirical criteria. Do you favor imposing the same restrictions on them that we impose on Indians? For example, if the educational funding situation changes, and most black people are educated via black people-funded community organizations, would requiring visas before we allow them to work be acceptable? If not, why is it acceptable to do this to Indians and Haitians? Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle? I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective. Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist. I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not. Government. A nation is served by an institution that delivers (more or less) consistent policy that can be shaped to benefit (or harm) those under it. It makes sense to have opinions about how institutions should operate. It does not make sense to have opinions about how the government of the non-existent nation of American white (or black) people should operate because it does not exist. >Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle? I'm not trying to wish it away like you are. Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. >Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. >I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so? Amusing :)
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism. I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. >I did nothing of the sort. Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually. >I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. >I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question I haven't ducked any questions at all. >whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance. I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck? Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we' I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
blfr 12y ago
Of course you would. Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market. I don't understand your condescending attitude or why it's preferred by voters over a regular argument. Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education. You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution. This is the least problem here.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >I don't understand your condescending attitude yummyfajitas' neoliberal market-first, capital-first views are fairly predictable. The idea that markets will always solve social issues better than any other means is such a deeply held, religious belief that he doesn't even think to try and justify his opinion. He feels that merely voicing it is sufficient to convince. So I tease him about it. >Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education. I don't see that happening, ever. Auctions, sure. America giving India enough money to cover the education of the citizens who emigrate to the US? Not a chance. >You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution. I don't see how auctioning off work permits solves any social issues. Frankly it sounds eerily similar to Dubai/Qatar-style indentured servitude where the construction workers take out loans to get a job paying a few dollars a day and have to work for months effectively for free to pay back that debt. Well, I guess if the social issue was "we want more dubai style indentured servitude"...
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Auctioning off work visas is pretty easy. The worker applies for a visa to the US government, which accepts a $30k bid. The worker shifts to the US and works for anyone they like. The US Govt takes $10k extra from their paycheck in taxes every year for 3 years. Solving your Dubai problems is pretty easy. If India is really worried about people leaving after getting educated, they can restrict emigration like the GDR, Soviet Union and North Korea. Of course, there are bigger problems we should worry about. I was educated in NJ but then immigrated to NY. Maybe NY also needs to restrict immigration from the B&T crowd, solely for the benefit of NJ, of course?
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market. I find libertarians obnoxious too, but he's actually parroting our meme on this one. "Auctioning" work visas is usually taken to mean auctioning them by salary, turning the visa-application process into a competition to push up wages.

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not. Let me again point out - you've brought up a bunch of empirical criteria. Suppose the situation changes and black Americans suddenly satisfy those empirical criteria. Do you favor imposing the same restrictions on them that we impose on Indians? For example, if the educational funding situation changes, and most black people are educated via black people-funded community organizations, would requiring visas before we allow them to work be acceptable? If not, why is it acceptable to do this to Indians and Haitians? Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle? I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective. Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist. I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?

crdoconnor 12y ago
>Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not. Government. A nation is served by an institution that delivers (more or less) consistent policy that can be shaped to benefit (or harm) those under it. It makes sense to have opinions about how institutions should operate. It does not make sense to have opinions about how the government of the non-existent nation of American white (or black) people should operate because it does not exist. >Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle? I'm not trying to wish it away like you are. Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. >Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. >I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so? Amusing :)
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism. I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. >I did nothing of the sort. Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually. >I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. >I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question I haven't ducked any questions at all. >whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance. I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck? Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we' I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).

blfr 12y ago

Of course you would. Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market. I don't understand your condescending attitude or why it's preferred by voters over a regular argument. Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education. You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution. This is the least problem here.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>I don't understand your condescending attitude yummyfajitas' neoliberal market-first, capital-first views are fairly predictable. The idea that markets will always solve social issues better than any other means is such a deeply held, religious belief that he doesn't even think to try and justify his opinion. He feels that merely voicing it is sufficient to convince. So I tease him about it. >Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education. I don't see that happening, ever. Auctions, sure. America giving India enough money to cover the education of the citizens who emigrate to the US? Not a chance. >You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution. I don't see how auctioning off work permits solves any social issues. Frankly it sounds eerily similar to Dubai/Qatar-style indentured servitude where the construction workers take out loans to get a job paying a few dollars a day and have to work for months effectively for free to pay back that debt. Well, I guess if the social issue was "we want more dubai style indentured servitude"...
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Auctioning off work visas is pretty easy. The worker applies for a visa to the US government, which accepts a $30k bid. The worker shifts to the US and works for anyone they like. The US Govt takes $10k extra from their paycheck in taxes every year for 3 years. Solving your Dubai problems is pretty easy. If India is really worried about people leaving after getting educated, they can restrict emigration like the GDR, Soviet Union and North Korea. Of course, there are bigger problems we should worry about. I was educated in NJ but then immigrated to NY. Maybe NY also needs to restrict immigration from the B&T crowd, solely for the benefit of NJ, of course?

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market. I find libertarians obnoxious too, but he's actually parroting our meme on this one. "Auctioning" work visas is usually taken to mean auctioning them by salary, turning the visa-application process into a competition to push up wages.