Political Compass Scores/Libertarianism. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14785736
@Decky,

You'll always encounter people in any society like the above mentioned who make money doing virtually nothing. You've zoned in on such a small minority of people.


Of course I have, I have zoned in on a tiny minority of people who live by hoarding the wealth others create while doing nothing themselves. They do this the such a great extent that the people who do get up in the morning and go to work and produce things have to live in poverty.

How's socialism working out in Venezuela?


Pretty sweet by all accounts, how is capitalism working in Somalia?

From my perspective, If I come up with an ingenious idea and I invest a year of my time planning and working out the details, putting my money on the line to create an entirely new market or I refine my product to match or surpass the competition, I should be making more than the people working for me. They aren't taking the same risks that I am. There's nothing preventing a tradesman or a programmer from coming up with their own ingenious ideas to make more money.


:lol:

Nothing apart from the fact they have no capital and have to spend their lives salving away for a tiny wage so their families don't freeze to death in the winter.

Are you saying that people like Steve Jobs (RIP), Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't be making more money than a janitor, shopkeeper or waiter? They can be pretty hard working after all.


Exactly. People who work should keep everything they produce and people who do nothing should get nothing. If Zuckerberg wants to have a share in the resources humanity produces he should get off his arse and contribute.

Anyone can clean a toilet, but who's capable of inventing the next Facebook or YouTube? Maybe I got your perspective wrong; it's late and I'm tired, but this is the way I'm interpreting it.


God forbid we should have to live in a world without facebook. :lol:
#14785840
mikema63 wrote:Your treating money as an end when it's a tool to exchange commodities. Simply collecting money for the sake of collecting money is bad for the economy. You start having consumer spending falls because people are literally hanging on to their money. So buinesnesses start to close, unemployment goes up, people become afraid and start hoarding more money, it gets worse.

Also, from a purely utilitarian perspective, how is someone working three part time jobs less deserving than a CEO of $100? For a CEO a hundred bucks is nothing but for that person working three jobs a hundred bucks a week can give them the freedom to go to school part time and still feed their kids.

Neil degrasse Tyson made an interesting point about this. If he was busy he would skip picking a penny up on the street, but he'd pick up a quarter. So there is a ratio of floor money to income that Neil would stop to pick up. The same ratio for Bill Gates would be about $100,000. If you taxes Bill Gates $100,000 it would be like me losing a dime of my income. When that money can improve the lives of so many people it seem immoral to not do so.


It's not a punishment for the rich or "successful" it's a maximization of social utility. Most people aren't poor because they just want to sit around, and they deserve a chance to do more than work a bunch of part time jobs till they die.


Ok, I should clarify my position on the "collecting money for the sake of collecting money" part, because that's not entirely true.

I believe in financial security to do the things I want to do and even things that I haven't yet realized, and I believe in having a "what if" supply of money.

What if I become sick and I can't work or I require expensive medical care that could potentially leave me in financial ruin.
What if my business goes under.
What if I decide that I'd like to move to another country and start over and that country requires me to make a huge financial investment to immigrate.
What if I decide that I don't like my current career and I'd like to pursue another career but I'll require a financial buffer to make that happen.

So I believe that people should always have more $ on hand than they actually require. A LOT MORE. Some people could claim that this is "collecting money for the sake of collecting money." If I only require 100 thousand per year to live comfortably, but I've saved 10 million, I'm sure many people would view that as "collecting money for the sake of collecting." I answered based on the options supplied without getting into a TDLR scenario, but it seems like most of the time when it comes to politics It's TDLR.

Ok, I'm probably not going to be able to answer this question the way you want me to, but this is my perspective on CEO's vs someone working 3 part time jobs.

The person working three part time jobs is *probably working low skill entry level jobs. Anyone is capable of working these jobs and so you're paid accordingly.
As I said in an earlier post, the CEO invented a new market or refined an existing market to become dominant and profitable. If this was so easy to accomplish, then more people would be doing it. People who engage in useful innovation to the benefit of society are more financially deserving than someone cleaning toilets at a school. If the reward for innovation and entrepreneurship was low, you'd end up with a nation of toilet cleaners. Also, you fucked up you if decided to create a family while working entry level jobs.

While I do believe that the rich should be taxed appropriately, I don't believe in going overboard.
If you tax them to the point where rich people feel that It's too high, what's stopping them from moving their business to other countries or dismantling their businesses entirely because they feel It's no longer worth the hassle.
#14785853
What if I become sick and I can't work or I require expensive medical care that could potentially leave me in financial ruin.
What if my business goes under.
What if I decide that I'd like to move to another country and start over and that country requires me to make a huge financial investment to immigrate.
What if I decide that I don't like my current career and I'd like to pursue another career but I'll require a financial buffer to make that happen.


Health insurance
Unemployment insurance
Why are you moving on a whim? It can take years to immigrate and file paperwork. Save up over that period.
Take out school loans, take a part time job, etc.

All but the emigration fund is stuff I think there should be government programs for by the way.

So I believe that people should always have more $ on hand than they actually require. A LOT MORE. Some people could claim that this is "collecting money for the sake of collecting money." If I only require 100 thousand per year to live comfortably, but I've saved 10 million, I'm sure many people would view that as "collecting money for the sake of collecting." I answered based on the options supplied without getting into a TDLR scenario, but it seems like most of the time when it comes to politics It's TDLR.


That would let you live for 100 years at your current standard of living. That would literally crash the economy from sheer deflation if everybody pulled money out of the economy and into savings at that level.

The person working three part time jobs is *probably working low skill entry level jobs. Anyone is capable of working these jobs and so you're paid accordingly.


Actually wages aren't set on the basis of skill. They are set on the basis of supply and demand. Regardless do you not recognize that it can be impossible for people to ever actually gain skills when they are in desperate conditions? Just because anyone can do low level jobs doesn't mean that the wages of low skill jobs is all that they deserve. The economy may value someone at $8 an hour but we as a society generally value people enough to think they should be safe, fed, clothed, etc.
As I said in an earlier post, the CEO invented a new market or refined an existing market to become dominant and profitable. If this was so easy to accomplish, then more people would be doing it. People who engage in useful innovation to the benefit of society are more financially deserving than someone cleaning toilets at a school. If the reward for innovation and entrepreneurship was low, you'd end up with a nation of toilet cleaners. Also, you fucked up you if decided to create a family while working entry level jobs.


People and their children shouldn't be punished for a mistake forever and ever. Besides I never made a narrative about why this hypothetical person might have a kid. Times may have been better and they lost there job. I'm not advocating that everyone make equal pay. I'm saying that the person working really hard every day deserves the change to improve their lives no?

Your basically taking an explanation about how income is set in a capitalist economy and suggesting it's morally correct for them to make that amount. That's like saying we shouldn't seek to make planes because gravity pulls things to the ground. It simply doesn't follow.

While I do believe that the rich should be taxed appropriately, I don't believe in going overboard.
If you tax them to the point where rich people feel that It's too high, what's stopping them from moving their business to other countries or dismantling their businesses entirely because they feel It's no longer worth the hassle.


The top marginal tax rate was 90% under Eisenhower and they didn't do this. I could just as easily ask what would happen if all those low skill workers just stopped working. Yet that random hypothetical hasn't led anyone to demand that janitors be given whatever they want.
#14785868
@The Immortal Goon,

1.) Capitalism - As with any position I hold, I could be convinced to change my stance if I'm provided with enough compelling evidence. Debating Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism etc, is not a priority for me. I'm relatively fine with the way things are even if the way things are is far from perfect. I tend to focus my attention on issues that I consider to be more pressing or interesting. I, as with anyone else, only have so much free time in a day to learn new things or refine my positions.

Governments - They lie. I think that we DO need governments, but since they do lie, I would prefer it if they had only as much power as is required to run a functioning society. How much control they should have? I couldn't even begin to discuss that as I wouldn't know.
Also, shit often tends to get fucked up when the government takes control. (Which is why I don't want them dipping their hands into the business side of things too much.) I could be here all day if I were to give examples, but instead I'm only going to give one because It's fresh in my mind and I only have time to go over one scenario of disapproval.

Marijuana. I think weed should be legal with some restrictions. (No selling to minors)
Where I live (Canada) the government was attempting to shut down marijuana dispensaries. At the time, there weren't that many of them, and you needed to go through a doctor to get permission to access them. So this is to say that a doctor had to give the 'ok' for you to acquire marijuana to address a medically diagnosed ailment. The government didn't like this. The government was trying to shut them down. They were doing this, because they along with the assistance of the pharmaceutical industry were growing marijuana. Except their weed was/is shit, and they had to mail it to you from across the country. So what I'm saying is, the system in place with the dispensaries was much more effective/efficient than the system the government was trying to put in place. So it goes back to me saying - the government has a tendency to fuck things up when it gets involved. The only upside to them doing this is that I'm sure they were concerned over the influence of the black market on dispensaries as you don't need to have a medical marijuana license to sell to a dispensary. However, this situation (to legalize or not to legalize marijuana) has dragged on for a VERY long time in Canada, and our current walking vagina of a Prime Minister said he'd legalize marijuana as part of his campaign promises, and It's been approx a year and 5 months since he became PM and it hasn't been legalized. You can't expect people to wait forever for solutions.

2.) How is it at odds?

No firm opinion on mercantilism. I think that's what you meant, but you spelled it improperly? *shrugs*

4.) NBC, FOX, NYT etc., have bigger platforms that reach more people for certain, but they had to start from some where, no? There are political YouTuber's who have 500 thousand + subscribers. Yes, a drop in the bucket compared to the reach of the MSM, but what good is having more reach if people don't buy what you're selling? Trust in the MSM is at an all time low. I'd rather a smaller number of people believe what I'm saying to be true than a larger audience who doesn't. All one has to do is look @ the comments section on FB/Twitter and you'll see that often times people aren't buying into the MSM narrative due to the influence of alternative media. Unfortunately, very recently, Google's terms of service for YouTube (which is by far and away the biggest free speech platform for individuals) has changed. So at this point in time I would say that the MSM has an edge over alternative media. For me It's a matter of free speech, and saying what's correct, not about whose platform is bigger. And I think that overtime the reach of alternative media will surpass that of the MSM. It already has with regard to PewDiePie. Now, I don't ever really watch the guy, but he does have 54 million subscribers and if you're familiar, the New York Time's recently attempted to smear him over Nazi allegations - more people sided with PewDiePie than the MSM and his subscriber base grew by nearly a million if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, probably TDLR, but if you want something in life, go out and do it. Don't play the victim and whine that someone may have an unfair advantage. Life isn't fair and never will be. If you want a platform to rival that of the MSM, go out and build it.

Ultimately, are all these questions really necessary? My primary reason for coming here was to find out where I fall on the political spectrum.
Whether I'm a Liberal, Conservative, Classical Liberal, Libertarian or Centrist and WHY. Because everyone IRL keeps calling me a Conservative even though many of my positions are Liberal. I think people just automatically associate me with Conservatism due to my "harsh opinions" on immigration, illegal immigration and refugees. Hell, you could probably call me Alt-Right to some extent if you wanted.
#14785883
@mikema63,

I guess It's a good thing that not everyone is in the position to pull their money out of the economy like that. I'm not even suggesting that this amount of money would remain out of the economy forever. I'd probably invest in property or business. The point is, I would want to have a huge "what if" buffer disproportionate to the amount of money I require annually. 10 million was just an arbitrary number I pulled out of my ass without any real math involved. It served to illustrate that I would want a much larger buffer than I actually require.

My parents came from poverty. They worked incredibly hard to lift themselves from poverty and made the correct decisions and sacrifices to remain poverty free and succeed. They're arguably the two hardest working people I've ever met. They also penny pinched whenever they could. I've never met anyone in my generation willing to do any of the things they've done. But I've certainly met plenty of entitled people who're unwilling to do any of the things that my parents did. I've met plenty of people who would rather cry victim instead of assuming personal responsibility to win @ the game of life. I've been in the work force since before I was legally eligible - saving money. And there have been times where I've worked 2 full time jobs. I was lucky if I had an hour to myself every day. It nearly drove me to a mental breakdown and I suffered with some temporary health issues. It sucked, but hey, I was able to save up and put a down payment on a piece of property because of it. Did I think it was "fair" that I needed to resort to such drastic measures and sacrifice my well being? No, but I did what I had to do to win.
#14786063
Jumping in to defend capitalism against treacherous communist subversives.

Decky wrote:Personally I have never seen an entrepreneur working hard, it mostly seems to involve sitting at desks.

One would presume that if there was little work involved in being an entrepreneur then more low-skill laborer would be jumping to do it. This isn't the case for one of two reasons. One, low-skill laborer's, by and large, aren't able for it. Two, low-skill laborer's get something out of being low-skill laborer's that has nothing to do with the financial remuneration - for example, the satisfaction on completion of a build. If it's the former, your point is invalid since there is clearly some difficulties involved in the work that entrepreneurs engage in. If it's the latter, then I'm not sure why low-skill laborer's spend so much time talking enviously about entrepreneurs, since presumably they're being rewarded adequately (else, why remain low-skill laborers).

Decky wrote:I live in a capitalist country myself and we give loads of money to people who sit on their ass and do nothing.

Relics of feudalism are decidedly un-capitalist, wouldn't you say?

Decky wrote:God forbid we should have to live in a world without facebook.

I'm sure people would, on the whole, be less happy. The reason Zuckerberg is rich, after all, is that people were happy enough to plug their time and money into his site.

mikema wrote:Also, from a purely utilitarian perspective, how is someone working three part time jobs less deserving than a CEO of $100? For a CEO a hundred bucks is nothing but for that person working three jobs a hundred bucks a week can give them the freedom to go to school part time and still feed their kids.

Philosophically speaking, cardinal utilitarianism is bunk. Particularly when it comes to the hedonistic sort.

Though, irrespective, there's a strong argument to be made that whilst individuals might suffer, the consequences for society from the system as a whole might out-do that. Your argument is only immediately valid in a two-person economy. But as soon as we start considering the spillovers that occur from allowing millionaires unfettered rights to invest all their earnings, your argument becomes a lot less intuitive.

mikema wrote:So there is a ratio of floor money to income that Neil would stop to pick up.

There is undoubtedly diminishing marginal returns on incomes, but eliciting preference structures so that we can make reasonable arguments about how the spoils of our labor should be distributed, is close to impossible. If we can't then get an idea of people's preferences structures, and thus can't make informed decisions about what the actions we can make to maximize utility are, is it not best to allow the Pareto Optimal solution to unfold - that's an inherently conservative proposition, but it seems better than guesswork.

mikema wrote:Actually wages aren't set on the basis of skill. They are set on the basis of supply and demand.

The elasticity of supply for low-skill occupations is quite large, which is the basis to them receiving such poor remuneration.

mikema wrote:The economy may value someone at $8 an hour but we as a society generally value people enough to think they should be safe, fed, clothed, etc.

I actually agree with the rest of your argument. Fennec's proposition that individuals shouldn't be granted more than their market wage is indefensible.

mikema wrote:The top marginal tax rate was 90% under Eisenhower and they didn't do this.

Which is why it sure is weird that federal recipients as a percentage of GDP as been roughly constant since the 1950s - and the percentage of federal income derived from income tax has remained about the same. I'm skeptical that Eisenhower was as progressive on the issue as is frequently made out - though, correct me if I'm wrong.
#14786167
Two, low-skill laborer's get something out of being low-skill laborer's that has nothing to do with the financial remuneration - for example, the satisfaction on completion of a build.


:lol:
#14786523
You are some type of American conservative, whatever is going on with them right now notwithstanding. Not a moral majority type from what I can tell but way to married to the moralization of economics.

Where you'd fall in conservative thought is going to depend on your foreign policy, racial policy, and if you think gays are icky.
#14786555
mikema63 wrote:You are some type of American conservative, whatever is going on with them right now notwithstanding. Not a moral majority type from what I can tell but way to married to the moralization of economics.

Where you'd fall in conservative thought is going to depend on your foreign policy, racial policy, and if you think gays are icky.


Interesting.
So, I went from being a Centrist to a Liberal to an American Conservative.

Foreign policy - Largely non-intervention, unless posing an undeniable threat to my own nation. I don't agree with a lot of what's occurred in the Middle East, and I don't agree with trying to install different political systems in other nations if they don't wish to adopt them. Everyone should respect the sovereignty of nations. I think the UN is a joke and it should probably be disbanded. No nation should be responsible for policing the rest of the world.

Racial policy - Well, that's very vague? When I interact with someone new I treat that person as an individual first, but I also believe that people are inherently tribal, and I don't think most people will dispute this fact. People self-segregate within society, vote in their own interests, and are generally more comfortable around people like themselves. If I was to take America as an example (from polls I've seen) - Caucasians are more likely to support Libertarian beliefs. Caucasians have a more positive view of Capitalism than Blacks or Hispanics, and Blacks and Hispanics have a more positive view of Socialism. So what happens to the nations policies when Caucasians become a minority? I believe that people have agency. I'm also familiar with criminal statistics. I also believe that societies should remain largely homogeneous. Really, you'd need to ask me specific questions about this because I could go on and on and I may not be addressing what it is that you'd like to hear.

Gays - I'm gay myself. As I stated in an earlier post, I could make the argument for and against same sex marriage, but I'd probably prefer marriage between a same sex couple to be classified as a civil partnership granting all the same rights awarded to heterosexual couples. A priest shouldn't be forced to marry you, and a religious bakery shouldn't be forced to bake your cake. I have a negative view of the pride movement and find it distasteful when compared to the pride movement of the 70's; it's become very degenerate.
#14786693
Decky wrote:
In the US all of those terms describe essentially the same thing.


That's the problem, I don't even know what these political parties stand for anymore, especially when I watch western MSM. Everything becomes conflated into one party except for the extremes.
Hence why I came here for clarification on where I'd fit in under the traditional classification of these words.
#14786694
I do feel a bit sorry for people in the US, both your parties are totally identical centre right liberal-capitalist bodies so you never get exposed to anything thing but a tiny segment of all the possible political positions in the world. It must be confusing.
#14786736
Racial policies was intentionally vauge so that you could just openly state your beliefs and justifications and not just say yes or no to any particular policy. That was a pretty alt right response. Not a religious social conservative but socially reactionary on racial issues (conservatives would oppose changing the current arrangement but you are questioning the entire foundations of American race relations which would drag racial policy back a century or two).
#14787142
mikema63 wrote:Racial policies was intentionally vauge so that you could just openly state your beliefs and justifications and not just say yes or no to any particular policy. That was a pretty alt right response. Not a religious social conservative but socially reactionary on racial issues (conservatives would oppose changing the current arrangement but you are questioning the entire foundations of American race relations which would drag racial policy back a century or two).


Yes, it probably could be considered an "Alt-Right" thing to say in today's political climate. Hence I mentioned Alt-Right earlier. However, I can easily look back 69 years in Canadian politics to find LIBERAL PM's who advocate for the same things I am. And the things that were said back then make as much sense in 2017; probably moreso since their statements are proving true. Alt-Right is such a vague term. There are people on the Alt-Right who believe in racial superiority/inferiority, and that's not in line with what I believe. But I do believe in keeping a nations culture in tact and America was defined by a European culture. Altering the racial demographics of a nation to the point of majority minority is retarded; it leads to resentment and hostility. It also has an impact on voting patterns between different demographics of people and different groups of people can see the same situation but interpret what they see in entirely different ways, which also leads to tension and conflict.

I have a problem with mass immigration in general (doesn't matter where people are from. White, Black, Asian, doesn't matter) because it fucks the poor working class and it leads to increased poverty and criminal activity. It's a wage suppressant and it doesn't allow enough time for assimilation.

Is it really an unreasonable thing to lower immigration intake levels and change the source countries? When I compare western immigration/refugee policies with nations like Japan and South Korea etc, etc., what the west is doing and the problems it causes seem ludicrous to me.
#14787736
I have a problem with mass immigration in general (doesn't matter where people are from. White, Black, Asian, doesn't matter) because it fucks the poor working class and it leads to increased poverty and criminal activity.


In one breath your telling me we shouldn't tax millionaires or help people making minimum wage because economic forces gave them those wages for a reason and in the other your telling me that you are concerned that the normal economic forces that drive economic migration will effect wages so we should block it. Don't bullshit about how much you suddenly care about the poor when in all your previous posts you told me you don't give a damn about their wages.

Immigrants statistically commit less crimes than native born citizens in every study done on the topic.

Both arguments are utter nonsense.

doesn't allow enough time for assimilation.


Assimilation can mean almost anything to anyone. Some think it's just immigrants liking their new home country, others think they need to literally convert. I'm not particularly concerned with assimilation outside of them not causing problems for their home country, which they don't in the US.

Is it really an unreasonable thing to lower immigration intake levels and change the source countries? When I compare western immigration/refugee policies with nations like Japan and South Korea etc, etc., what the west is doing and the problems it causes seem ludicrous to me.


When your reasons given are complete nonsense and you site notoriously racist countries as good examples it goes beyond me thinking your unreasonable. I think you are a racist.
#14787781
@mikema63,


Why would I want to tax millionaires to the point that they close down their businesses and leave the country thus creating more poverty? And a sure way to create more poverty in any society is to bring in more cheap labor to compete against people who're already at the bottom end of the economic scale. Just because I don't want to tax the fuck out of prosperous people doesn't mean I want the labor force to suffer anymore than it already does. What people here seem to be advocating for is punishing people who made good life decisions and awarding people who made poor life decisions. NO.

Regarding assimilation -
Do you disagree that Europe let in too many refugees too quickly and It's creating integration/assimilation issues?
Whether It's immigrants or refugees - maybe you're ok with different groups people creating mini nations within nations wherein these groups of people refuse to speak the native language and they refuse to let go of antithetical barbaric beliefs and practices. Not all cultures are equal. Or maybe you're a cultural relativist?

Even in Canada--arguably one of the best integrated nations in the world--there are certain neighborhoods I can't go to because the people there don't speak English. And in one city in particular (by law) they aren't required to use English signage. Oh, but this isn't a problem?

Say what you will about South Korea and Japan, but their culture and heritage will remain in tact.

"Immigrants statistically commit less crimes than native born citizens in every study done on the topic."
Per capita? Citations? I'm pretty sure that Hispanics in the USA commit more crime in the USA than Caucasians.
Are you really fucking kidding me that the immigrants in Sweden are committing less crime than the Swedes?
#14787801
Why would I want to tax millionaires to the point that they close down their businesses and leave the country thus creating more poverty? And a sure way to create more poverty in any society is to bring in more cheap labor to compete against people who're already at the bottom end of the economic scale. Just because I don't want to tax the fuck out of prosperous people doesn't mean I want the labor force to suffer anymore than it already does. What people here seem to be advocating for is punishing people who made good life decisions and awarding people who made poor life decisions. NO.


And yet this going galt scenario has literally never happened even under tax regimes of up to 90% of income. A sure way to create poverty in society is to allow the unchecked accumulation of wealth and destruction of social saftey nets. Don't start complaining about how the poor are hurt by immigration when every other policy you seem to espouse has a strong fuck the poor streak going.

The wage depression idea also doesn't hold all that much water since immigrants typically do jobs that we literally can't find american's to do. In fact, a quick google finds studies that directly refute this pronouncement of yours.

Here is one https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/2

They literally show that immigration rates have an impact on the wages and employment of prior immigrants but not on native born citizens.


Do you disagree that Europe let in too many refugees too quickly and It's creating integration/assimilation issues?


Why would you even want to assimilate refugees, refugees are people you intend to send back home once the conflict is over.

Whether It's immigrants or refugees - maybe you're ok with different groups people creating mini nations within nations wherein these groups of people refuse to speak the native language and they refuse to let go of antithetical barbaric beliefs and practices.


Because china towns prevented Asian immigrants from assimilating into our culture? Every first generation immigrant group form communities in the host country, every single one. not because they refuse to learn the language but because they haven't yet and don't speak it well.

Or your referring to sharia law no go zones that literally do not exist.

Not all cultures are equal. Or maybe you're a cultural relativist?


Cultures evolved in places and times to best function in those places and times. Cultures die or change when they no longer function well in the place and time they are in. They are not good or bad they are simply the collective tools by which human societies function. It's why I think christians don't stone people anymore and why muslim communities that immigrated in the 1920-30s have things like mosques where gays can get married and women can preach.

http://inclusivemosqueinitiative.org/

Even in Canada--arguably one of the best integrated nations in the world--there are certain neighborhoods I can't go to because the people there don't speak English.


Like you can't shop there or something? New immigrants don't always speak english well, I fail to see how this is some horrible catastrophe and we should never let anyone into our county.

And in one city in particular (by law) they aren't required to use English signage. Oh, but this isn't a problem?


NO! They don't let new immigrants litter the roads with car wreaks because they can't read the signs?!?!?

This is truly terrible! Obviously they are planning on 9/11ing the shit out of Canada, just look at the road signs! Wake up sheeple!!

Say what you will about South Korea and Japan, but their culture and heritage will remain in tact.


No they aren't, their culture today is radically different than fifty years ago, than 100 years ago, and yet more than a thousand. No culture looks the same now as it did even a few decades ago, don't go spouting some nonsense of the mythical eternally lasting culture we all share with aristocrats and peasant farmers in the medieval era.

Per capita? Citations? I'm pretty sure that Hispanics in the USA commit more crime in the USA than Caucasians


http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet ... study.html

Are you really fucking kidding me that the immigrants in Sweden are committing less crime than the Swedes?


http://www.government.se/articles/2017/ ... in-sweden/

Wherin they cite several studies, show that crime rates have fallen in sweeden from 20 years ago, and point out that immigration status is a non factor and crime suspicion rates are purely a product of economic status for all races and origins.

It does bring me some amount of amusement to point out that your complete disdain for the poor (except when you can shed fake tears over them to defend your racist stances) would do far far more to drive up crime rates than mexicans ever will.
#14788424
@mikema63,

-Here's an example of wage suppression in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_ ... _to_Canada

"In terms of the impact of immigration to economy-wide wage levels, Statistics Canada estimates that for every 10% increase in the population from immigration, wages in Canada are now reduced by 4% on average (with the greatest impact to more skilled workers, such as workers with post-graduate degrees whose wages are reduced by 7%)."

"Why would you even want to assimilate refugees, refugees are people you intend to send back home once the conflict is over."

It feels like you're being intellectually dishonest in your assessment of reality.
-You're under the assumption that they'll go home. Did it occur to you that many of these people won't be willing to go home or the nations they inhabit won't bother to send them home? Then what are you going to do? Coerce them to go back home at gunpoint? Yeah, that makes for real good humanitarian optics. Why would they want to go home when they can stay and collect benefits for the rest of their lives? The majority of the people arriving to Europe from the Middle East and Africa are economic migrants. These people are bypassing the nearest safe nations; they're nation shopping for the best benefits. So you either try to integrate these people or you end up with a balkanized nation. We don't even know when these conflicts are going to end. The best thing we could've done was provide these people with food and shelter outside of these conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East, which is much more cost efficient (able to help many more people) than housing them in Europe. And when the conflicts eventually end, It'll be more convenient and cost efficient for them to go back home. That's the general consensus from economists. Not only that, but you aren't removing them from their cultures and having to educate these people into cultural norms that they aren't accustom to.

Sharia Law is being enforced within communities, but obviously It's not recognized under the official law of said nations. We've seen examples of this enforcement. No-go zones are real. Women in these areas are often segregated from the men, the indigenous population is often attacked and the police often refuse to go into these areas.


"NO! They don't let new immigrants litter the roads with car wreaks because they can't read the signs?!?!?

This is truly terrible! Obviously they are planning on 9/11ing the shit out of Canada, just look at the road signs! Wake up sheeple!!"

-What are you even talking about? If It's an English/French speaking nation and I can't read any of the store signs because they're in Mandarin or Cantonese and I can't communicate with the people living there, then why would I ever go there?

-How's this for cultural integration?

"52% of British Muslims in poll think homosexuality should be illegal"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/br ... ms-survey/

"Women at British Mosque Saying Kill Those Who Reject Islam"



Immigrants and refugees in Sweden DO commit more crime. The government is trying to cover up.

Why don't you take a look at this guys channel, he digs into all the statistics. I'm not going to link a dozen different sources that you likely won't read. If you genuinely believe that immigrants living in Sweden are committing less crime than the ethnic Swedes, we're done here.

https://www.youtube.com/user/EnArgBlatteTalar/videos

(He cites all of his sources in the description.)

So you think diversity is such a good thing? Here's a very well known study on diversity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam

"Diversity and trust within communities."

-Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

-Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
-Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.
-Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
-Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
-Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
-Less likelihood of working on a community project.
-Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
-Fewer close friends and confidants.
-Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
-More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

5 hours long negotiations between Turkish and US d[…]

EU-BREXIT

There is Theresa May's agreement (See Benn Act as[…]

US Diplomat's Wife Hit and Run in UK

It says volumes about her and about Trump, the gl[…]

And why do they choose to enter the US illegally,[…]