|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted January 30, 2013 12:38 AM |
|
|
Natalie Portman just married one of my close friends, Benjamin Millepied (he is now gone from Lyon, far away), which is not jew at all. There is some bugs noise about, while he refused to convert to judaism. However he had to support traditional jewish ceremony, but I would too, for Padmé Amidala. 
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 12:38 AM |
|
|
|
Process itself differes from movement to movement (orthodox/reform etc) but if you wanna convert you'll convert, every religion accepts newbies... Its the whole "Join the army they say, see the world they say" well kinda
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 12:40 AM |
|
|
Smithey:
The point is, shops are being fined for being open on Saturdays.
As for using force, what I mean is that if two people identical in every way want to obtain Israeli citizenship, except one of them is Jewish and the other isn't, Israel may let the Jew immigrate and keep the non-Jew out by force (if necessary).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 12:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Natalie Portman just married one of my close friends, Benjamin Millepied, which is not jew at all. There is some bugs noise about, while he refused to convert to judaism. However he had to support traditional jewish ceremony, but I would too if she dared to look down at me 
Its your b-day who would say no to you.... Met her briefly once, she has a nice personality but you can do better, she's like a dwarf with a body of a 12 yo girl....hopefully you're not into that
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 12:42 AM |
|
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 12:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Smithey:
The point is, shops are being fined for being open on Saturdays.
As for using force, what I mean is that if two people identical in every way want to obtain Israeli citizenship, except one of them is Jewish and the other isn't, Israel may let the Jew immigrate and keep the non-Jew out by force (if necessary).
Possibly but then again, USA for example will do the same thing with a Canadian and an Egyptian... Every country has the right to prevent someone from getting their citizenship otherwise it would be open borders for everyone everywhere, Im sure you're not suggesting something like that...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 01:05 AM |
|
|
"Everyone else does it" is not a valid argument. Yes, the US might do something similar. Would it be justified? No. I'm supportive of freer migration - and it is definitely wrong for a government's immigration decisions to be in any way influenced by the ethnicity of the potential immigrant. If a government doesn't want to let in poor unskilled immigrants, that's one thing. But if it wants to let in poor unskilled immigrants of one ethnicity but not of another, that's wrong.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 01:31 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 01:34, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
"Everyone else does it" is not a valid argument. Yes, the US might do something similar. Would it be justified? No. I'm supportive of freer migration - and it is definitely wrong for a government's immigration decisions to be in any way influenced by the ethnicity of the potential immigrant. If a government doesn't want to let in poor unskilled immigrants, that's one thing. But if it wants to let in poor unskilled immigrants of one ethnicity but not of another, that's wrong.
Im not saying its valid coz everyone else does it, Im saying its valid coz every country has the right to either refuse or accept outsiders based on whatever criteria they decide to, Is it wrong for you to let a white person into your home but to prevent an Asian from doing so based on their race ? It's your home, I might not agree with your morals but I do believe it's your right...
Israel favors jews, America favors certain countries over the others, Italy favors rich people, to each country their own set of rules, every criteria is within their rights, furthermore if one really wants to be an Israeli one can simply convert and become a jew, on the other side of the equation you have the criteria of financial status or country of origin and those are much harder to change (the second one being impossible to change)...
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 01:36 AM |
|
|
I don't know about stores being open in Israel, but I do know it's illegal in the US in many states to sell alcohol on Sunday. It's an equally unfair and unjustified law.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 01:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know about stores being open in Israel, but I do know it's illegal in the US in many states to sell alcohol on Sunday. It's an equally unfair and unjustified law.
Yeah !! And Sunday is meant for football, it's devils work, preventing people from drinking beer while watching football !!!! 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 01:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know about stores being open in Israel, but I do know it's illegal in the US in many states to sell alcohol on Sunday. It's an equally unfair and unjustified law.
As far as I remember, your constitution separates religion and state. So what do they base the law on?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 02:06 AM |
|
|
Smithey:
Quote:
Im saying its valid coz every country has the right to either refuse or accept outsiders based on whatever criteria they decide to, Is it wrong for you to let a white person into your home but to prevent an Asian from doing so based on their race ?
My home is my property. The territory governed by a government is not its property. I can refuse to let someone into my house because of property rights and freedom of association - but rights are something possessed by private entities (individuals or voluntary associations of individuals), not by governments. Suppose I want to hire a foreign worker, and someone else wants to let him rent an apartment in the country. Here are two examples of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, in which property rights and freedom of association are respected. However, the government would often prevent this worker from coming to this country. On what grounds? It doesn't own my workplace or the apartment in which he's going to live.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 02:20 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 02:27, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
My home is my property. The territory governed by a government is not its property. I can refuse to let someone into my house because of property rights and freedom of association - but rights are something possessed by private entities (individuals or voluntary associations of individuals), not by governments. Suppose I want to hire a foreign worker, and someone else wants to let him rent an apartment in the country. Here are two examples of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, in which property rights and freedom of association are respected. However, the government would often prevent this worker from coming to this country. On what grounds? It doesn't own my workplace or the apartment in which he's going to live.
Territory is not the property of the state ? You sure about that ? Coz border is pretty much a door into your house, Every country including the one you live in has a right to not allow you to enter its territory, If you enter the country without being allowed to you are illegal in that country, people can be shot dead for passing the border or for entering your home if not allowed to do so...
If a worker wants to come to country A, to make money, country A can either let him in or not, its their choice and every country has certain set of rules regarding who can or cant enter. Why would a country not allow your worker to enter ?
1. Money is leaving the country (economic loss)
2. One workplace is being occupied by a non citizen as opposed to the citizen and country A has obligations towards citizens as opposed to non-citizens...
Both are perfectly rational to me,,,,
What you're proposing is open borders and that is just a horrible idea...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 02:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Territory is not the property of the state ?
It isn't. Does the state have the moral right to bulldoze your house or tell you what you can consume inside it?
Employment should purely be mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. It's between employee and employer (assuming both follow the contract they agreed to). The government doesn't own my money. It has to take some in the form of taxes to continue functioning, but beyond that, it can't morally prevent me from spending it however I like (as long as it doesn't hurt others). If I choose to give money to someone, that's my business. Whether I want to replace native workers with immigrants or machines, it's not the government's place to stop me. If I own the workplace, that means I can do whatever I want with it.
I think open borders is an appealing idea, and the only two problems I see with it are immigrants using the welfare state (which can be circumvented by abolishing the welfare state altogether, something that should be done anyway), and immigrants who are wanted criminals in some country should not be allowed to immigrate to hide from justice. Other than that, open borders are good.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 02:55 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 03:03, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Territory is not the property of the state ?
It isn't. Does the state have the moral right to bulldoze your house or tell you what you can consume inside it?
Employment should purely be mutually beneficial voluntary exchange. It's between employee and employer (assuming both follow the contract they agreed to). The government doesn't own my money. It has to take some in the form of taxes to continue functioning, but beyond that, it can't morally prevent me from spending it however I like (as long as it doesn't hurt others). If I choose to give money to someone, that's my business. Whether I want to replace native workers with immigrants or machines, it's not the government's place to stop me. If I own the workplace, that means I can do whatever I want with it.
How do you think you get to build a house mvass ? You have to buy the land and get a permit to build on it, just then it becomes your property, before you have bought it from the "state" it was their property, if you fail your side of the agreement (purchase of the said territory) the state will take it back,,,,
Why of course it can, when accepting the rights as given to you by your country you also agree to play by their rules (its called the law) so, no you dont get to spend your money as you see fit, you get to spend your money in a legal manner only... Hire whoever you want, as long as its done according to the laws of your state..
Edit Quote:
I think open borders is an appealing idea, and the only two problems I see with it are immigrants using the welfare state (which can be circumvented by abolishing the welfare state altogether, something that should be done anyway), and immigrants who are wanted criminals in some country should not be allowed to immigrate to hide from justice. Other than that, open borders are good.
Stop.. think... what does it mean open borders ? one can go in and out as he/she sees fit, no checkups, no nothing, millions of people can go daily into your country without you even knowing who is coming in and out, without any control whatsoever, when does your country seize to be your country ? How do you protect your citizens ? Do you arrest people from other countries ? Think of the many dangers it would involve.. It would be simply put - Chaos
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 03:17 AM |
|
|
Smithey:
You buy the land from a previous owner of the property - he was the owner, and now you are. You don't buy it from the state unless it's property the state claimed for itself - unjustly. For example, in the case of the US, by forcibly removing Native Americans from it.
You don't "accept" rights. Rights are something inherent to human existence. Rights may be protected (either by a private entity, such as in the case of self-defense, or by a state) or they can be violated (by a private entity or the state). If I am engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange and not violating anyone else's rights, any interference with such exchange is unjust, even if it's legal.
As for open borders, as I said, I don't support them completely. There have to be checks to ensure that criminals or terrorists don't enter the country. This is a matter of national defense - a legitimate function of government. But if someone is not a threat, they should be allowed to enter and exit whenever they want. There would not be much of a change in how the government protects people who live in a territory - if someone commits a crime, they could be deported, or treated as they are now. It doesn't require much change in institutions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 03:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As far as I remember, your constitution separates religion and state. So what do they base the law on?
It's not as rare as you might think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:06 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 04:12, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
You buy the land from a previous owner of the property - he was the owner, and now you are. You don't buy it from the state unless it's property the state claimed for itself - unjustly. For example, in the case of the US, by forcibly removing Native Americans from it.
You don't "accept" rights. Rights are something inherent to human existence. Rights may be protected (either by a private entity, such as in the case of self-defense, or by a state) or they can be violated (by a private entity or the state). If I am engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary exchange and not violating anyone else's rights, any interference with such exchange is unjust, even if it's legal.
Land had to be acquired from the state before it was owned by anybody (going back to the old days), and even though it is widely accepted that land is privately owned, the fact that you cant build whatever you want on your land without a permit or the fact that you pay taxes for the land perpetuates a kind of collectivity in ownership...
I do agree with you that private ownership is whats referred to as the basic system in the states....
Nothing is inherent to human existance or do I need to remind you of the existance of slaves or the fact that your grandmother probably had no right to vote, Rights are what your country provides its citizens (those btw vary from country to country) and citizens have certain obligations as well, there is an agreement betwen the country and its citizens and those rights are actually the main reason for the existance of.. well of countries, it was a big philosophical/ethical/economical issue that is still going on since 17th century, Check Adam Smith "wealth of nations" (you're an economy student so its your field), and keeps going even to this day Check Amartya Sen.... there are so many philosophical conversations regarding the rights and countries.... And this is really off topic 
Quote:
As for open borders, as I said, I don't support them completely. There have to be checks to ensure that criminals or terrorists don't enter the country. This is a matter of national defense - a legitimate function of government. But if someone is not a threat, they should be allowed to enter and exit whenever they want. There would not be much of a change in how the government protects people who live in a territory - if someone commits a crime, they could be deported, or treated as they are now. It doesn't require much change in institutions.
If you're cheking me and upon that checkup deciding whether I can enter your country or not.... it is NOT an open border, the only thing you have done here is changed the set of rules upon which you will decide whether one can enter or not...
All you want to do is to make a new criteria for your mvass-land.. you would still have certain set of rules though (no criminals/whatever)... and my point is that in mvass-land you have a right to create your own criteria...We're saying the same thing here
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:10 AM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 04:36, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
I looked it up and the situation wasn't as grim as I thought. Still, in my ideal world, we welcome people who want to live a better life instead of labeling them as criminals. Even as second class citizens, without access to some wellfare benefits, that's better than having them live in misery. But that's probably another discussion.
You are too navíve in this case.
Look atround you. People dont want somebody who they dont know enter their country.
The immigration laws of your country or any other country in the EU are not made for "Goodwill".
You cant simply go into the EU and say "I wanna become a german or a swede and seek a better life". You need to be qualified or better said "You need to have a higher price to be sold in europe, just like slaves".
It does not matter if immigrants pay social security or do their taxes. Unlike what the most believe(Including here), foreigners do pay their taxes, work 40 hours a week and so on. The reason why people blame them is just the old "blame mule" syndrome or because they are "Over-represented".
By over-representation I mean Racism and false statistics. Foreigners in europe are much mroe likely to be checked for criminal activity.
Since more controls = more finds, here is your blame mule.
However, immigrants could be more prone to crime as their background is unknown. No matter the case, you will see all over europe people screaming at how every immigrant is on wellfare. Abolishing wellfare would be ok then, but they cant do that. If they did so, so would the lazy ass nationals be out of work.
Immigrating in europe means subjecting yourself to intstituionalized discrimination and racism.
Secondly, those immigrats could take up jobs that normaly lazy ass indigenous people would take.
In essence, it fuels discontent within the low-wage population.
Thirdly, immigrants have different cultures. It is simply too hard for most national europeans to "Respect" the culture of others. What I mean is that the simple demand of "You must respect his tradtion" pisses off europeans. They did not have to do so before and dont want to.
Fourthly, immigrants are more likely to breed and thus grow. Most europeans countries fail at integration "Germany blames immigrants for integration problems instead of itself". Really, one hand they say "You have the right to speak your own languange and have your own culture" and on the other hand they say you are not completely like us... Sure, you have criminals, jihadists and so on, but thats what you police force is for, right?
And finaly, immigrants lower the wages. People are more willing to work on low wage jobs and thus increases a countries productivity.
The national population does not want that. They want, as always, higher wages.
Really, the only reason there is immigration in europe is because somebody has to do the dirty work and pay the taxes because the European population is aging. Somebody gotta pay the rent of those old people. Since europe got all the immigrants it needed to do that, now its being negatively affected by absorbing too much immigrants in a short time, they changed the laws over time.
Other than that, immigrating in europe is like going into a giant concentration camp-
That is why any law, no matter how racist it might be sounding, is ok because it is the law of that country.
As I said before, israel does not deserve any blame for that.
What particualry is ironic is that before borders and visas existed, people could travel around the world freely. How come immigration was not a problem back then?
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 08:05 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 08:06, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
Look atround you. People dont want somebody who they dont know enter their country.
So because some other people oppose more liberal immigration that should stop me from pursueing those ideas?
Quote:
You cant simply go into the EU and say "I wanna become a german or a swede and seek a better life".
I'm not saying you can, I'm saying you should be able too. The EU has free migration within the schengenen area. I'd imagine that free migration would start off between the European countries, the US and other rich countries. For the poor countries, you can't just open your borders to them without changing your own country first.
Quote:
Secondly, those immigrats could take up jobs that normaly lazy ass indigenous people would take.
In essence, it fuels discontent within the low-wage population.
How is that a bad thing? They're still much better off than in their home countries. If a large bunch of people are prepared to take low-wage jobs, than that's only good. Much better than having them leech off wellfare atleast...
The problem with low-wage jobs is that if you have a country where hiring people is taxed, like in Sweden, and it actually becomes a loss to hire people, then you will have a very limited number of unqualificed jobs which native citizens won't have a chance to get because they're not prepared to work for low wages. Especially if citizens have access to a minimun wage, which I think they should because I don't want a society where people need three jobs and have zero free time. So I think the main challenge with free migration is how you are supposed to avoid massive unemployment.
Quote:
What particualry is ironic is that before borders and visas existed, people could travel around the world freely. How come immigration was not a problem back then?
The world was much, much less globalized and much, much harder to traverse.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
