When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas • Hacker News Board

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#151

Post by Symbiote » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #127

Symbiote wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone unaware: note that the Daily Mail is the most openly xenophobic newspaper in Britain, and RT (Russia Today) is a state-funded propaganda TV network. Russia has a clear interest in destabilizing the European Union. The Daily Mail's motive is less clear.

What is the relevance to this discussion? Are you actually asserting that the facts raised there are false, or are you simply trying to get people to dismiss true statements?

Both sources have such low credibility that they should be ignored. That doesn't mean they're wrong, but I don't think they lend any weight to your argument.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#152

Post by wtbob » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #142

wtbob wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck is stupid or racist about the quote I posted? Here it is, again: 'Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort o…

> Well, since you started the incivility: you're a complete and utter dingbat. Not every issue is about race. This issue isn't about race. If you think you can have a discussion about immigration in 2016 using a "sensible, law-abiding Englishman in 1914" as your "look at what we've lost"... I just don't know what to tell you. The lack of you getting why there's a huge racial component to posting something like that..…

I think that you're literally insane. There's no point trying to reason with an irrational man, and so … I'm done.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#153

Post by nucleardog » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #140

CalRobert wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support freedom of movement, but I also understand people's worries about unmanageable burdens placed on support systems for a nation's people. Of course, if there were no support systems this would be a moot point, and is one of the few counterarguments to, say, increased public healthcare or pensions, that made sense. HN has a lot of proponents of universal basic income. Say a small country, maybe Iceland with on…

Fourth option would be to extend the benefit only to people who have a place to sleep at night, ie. house owners, renters, staying in a hotel etc. That places a natural limit on the number of people who can stay (the size of the housing stock), and doesn't present any problems for existing citizens or tourists. You could combine this by aggressively deporting people found sleeping rough (which given the extreme cold…

I think that's a clever solution short term, but long term the incentives would align to give rise to slums and ghettos.

If there are millions willing to enter the country and be granted a free income, then anyone with some capital has a guaranteed payday in hastily putting up the cheapest livable accommodations and renting it to these people.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#154

Post by turar » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

tarancato wrote: post #113

lordnacho wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody just "deserves" anything. A few comments up you're saying the French deserved their stuff because their ancestors worked for it.

Nobody just "deserves" anything [just for being born. Someone has to work hard for everything]

Yet you claimed precisely that a few comments above.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#155

Post by United857 » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #99

chrischen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the US have such fares?

These fares do require decent flexibility -- for tourist destinations, you won't be leaving on a Friday and returning on Sunday. The £4.49 flight between London and Romania is on a Wednesday, on a Friday it's £60-70. Ryanair use the low fares for marketing, pretty successfully. They probably expect many people to add luggage (£10-40, depending on route), or buy food on the plane (£10+) or be disorganized and end up p…

Spirit and Allegiant are probably the closest US equivalents. Totally no frills, and you pay for everything including hand luggage and water.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#156

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #99

chrischen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn't the US have such fares?

These fares do require decent flexibility -- for tourist destinations, you won't be leaving on a Friday and returning on Sunday. The £4.49 flight between London and Romania is on a Wednesday, on a Friday it's £60-70. Ryanair use the low fares for marketing, pretty successfully. They probably expect many people to add luggage (£10-40, depending on route), or buy food on the plane (£10+) or be disorganized and end up p…

[deleted]

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#157

Post by nucleardog » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #126

CalRobert wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support freedom of movement, but I also understand people's worries about unmanageable burdens placed on support systems for a nation's people. Of course, if there were no support systems this would be a moot point, and is one of the few counterarguments to, say, increased public healthcare or pensions, that made sense. HN has a lot of proponents of universal basic income. Say a small country, maybe Iceland with on…

You're missing the fourth option, which is to continue providing benefits to everyone (including new immigrants), and raise revenue enough to cover the added expense. Spending more money didn't automatically equal bankruptcy, governments have essentially unlimited capacity to raise taxes and issue bonds.

Taken to the absurd extreme, you end up with a country where the amount going to social assistance equals the amount of spending within the country, and a tax rate of 100%. So, uh, communism.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#158

Post by rwmj » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 6:14 PM UTC

nucleardog wrote: post #153

rwmj wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fourth option would be to extend the benefit only to people who have a place to sleep at night, ie. house owners, renters, staying in a hotel etc. That places a natural limit on the number of people who can stay (the size of the housing stock), and doesn't present any problems for existing citizens or tourists. You could combine this by aggressively deporting people found sleeping rough (which given the extreme cold…

I think that's a clever solution short term, but long term the incentives would align to give rise to slums and ghettos. If there are millions willing to enter the country and be granted a free income, then anyone with some capital has a guaranteed payday in hastily putting up the cheapest livable accommodations and renting it to these people.

You control that with housing / development controls, just the same as now. I can't fill my house with bunk beds and rent it to 10 people today. Nor can I build anything I want on land (even if I own it) without the permission of the council or government.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#159

Post by ChicagoBoy11 » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 6:23 PM UTC

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #139

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #11

I'm appalled at how many self-described liberals I know who consider themselves to be guardians of civil liberties not bat an eye to these restrictions. The matter of fact is that all the restrictions we put in place with respect to the free movement of peoples -- and the accompanying restrictions around employment, leisure, etc. -- are single-handedly the single biggest breach of human rights in the world. It is abs…

I'm concerned about opening up the borders before we understand why some countries are corrupt and others aren't. In a place like the US, trying to bribe a police officer is unexpected, and everyone who gets involved in the situation ends up working to punish those involved in the bribery. In a place like Venezuela, bribing a police officer is expected, and everyone who gets involved in the situation ends up getting…

That's a really interesting point. As an immigrant myself, I'd say that one of the objections to immigration (generally-speaking) which I find has the most sway is something along the lines that you have mentioned.

I genuinely believe that some of the "negative" things countries experience are directly related to certain cultural norms/values that many of their citizens may share, and that by moving to a different country, some of those values could also be embedded in the receiving country and similarly "pollute" it.

But I think that the answer to that is MORE immigration, not less. By restricting immigration, we're introducing small pebbles into the gears which allow people to find the best opportunities for themselves and their families. I think is it precisely those issues which allow public policies and cultural norms to distort so much. With MORE immigration, I think competition would very quickly weed out norms and practices which are inconsistent with a healthy and productive society. I think a story like Chavez's and Maduro's would be a lot more difficult to come by in a society where their citizens could not be forced to live under their regime.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#160

Post by ChicagoBoy11 » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 6:29 PM UTC

pzh wrote: post #92

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you are completely free to move and work in any state you want to (and a geography in the same order of magnitude of all of Europe), and it doesn't seem to cause the mayhem you suggest -- and mind you, most gov't spending takes place at the state and local level.

But you always pay taxes at the federal level, which distributes some of that income to states. Also the individual states have the mechanism to recover taxes you owe them from previous years and to pursue you for whatever violations you have committed. Additionally, state residence does exist as a concept and it is tracked in the form of state ids. It's true there are no borders but you are required to register wher…

>You can't really compare the US state system to different countries that are openly hostile or may not even talk to each other (e.g. US and Russia, or US and North Korea) and expect to have the legal cooperation that could enable freedom of movement.

That reveals a fundamental difference in how we see the world. The hostility which you mention is real, but I see it as a byproduct of the kinds of walls and separation we artificially place between ourselves. Let's not forget that same animosity existed between the U.S. and China, and more commercial relations reduced those tensions.

I fundamentally believe that the PEOPLE in the U.S., Russia, and yes, even the North Koreans, are fundamentally good. These artificial barriers we palce between one another create this us v. them environment, and that leads to this hostility.

How many times don't we hear complaints about "our jobs going oversaas," for instance? Mind you, many of the people voicing those complaints are also people who loudly advocate for increased job opportunities here at home. The lack of empathy for people in other nations is real. But it is created by these restrictions.