Immigration Restrictions

[Mao]

After re-reading the post, yeah I've basically paraphrased that Brendan said to Mark, so what I wrote should be addressed to Mark, and not Brendan (blame it on posting it at like midnight).

That said, I'll like to address the last point. No claim can be true and false at the same time. Ever. Saying so leads to postmodernism and you don't want to go there.

but the converse also applies no claim can be both not true and not false at the same time, ever.

the only way to avoid this is by claiming one of them is true -> which is the third point you made: argumentum ad ignorantiam

therefore your logic is false by reductio ad absurdum

ego diligo latin, pacis sicco glockmeister [lol internet translator sucks ]

[Eriny]

That said, I'll like to address the last point. No claim can be true and false at the same time. Ever. Saying so leads to postmodernism and you don't want to go there.

What's wrong with postmodernism?

[brendan]

mmm postmodernism..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

[Glockmeister]

^ yeah that.

Just for clarification, I'm talking about Postmodernism in terms of Philosophy, not Art or Music.

[excal]

http://symposia.voodooed.net/Contrasting-Ethernet-and-BL.pdf

[mark_alec]

1. We have limited resources.
2. The population has been increasing
3. There would be less resources to go around,
4. Hence the quality of life would deteriorate.

Oh wait but 4 didn't actually happen in real life

If you actually read my post, you will notice that I said that we can cope with a small change in population per year (due to improvements in technology, resource allocation and the like.) I suggest you read what I write (which isn't much) before accusing me of not understanding basic economics.

[brendan]

I suggest you read what I write (which isn't much) before accusing me of not understanding basic economics.

(1) But you don't understand it. If you did you wouldn't have made that argument.

The basis of your argument was that there is there is a fixed amount of resources, more people means that "there is less resources to go around" and hence the standard of living goes down.

It is totally fallacious. That is not at all how a nation's standard of living is determined. It has little to do with the amount of natural resources within some arbitrary political boundary.

Furthermore your argument assumes that Australians cannot utilize foreign resources, like foreign labour, foreign goods, foreign investment, etc.

(2) I wasn't arguing that everyone should breeding like mad. I was arguing for the removal of governmental restrictions on the free movement of persons.

Your argument also assumes that under free imimgration the world population would be higher than what it would be under government restrictions on movement. Oh wait no, nvm this, your world is only Australia, and you argue that we should ignore completely the welfare and human freedoms of all 6 679 000 000 non-Australians as if they don't exist or they don't matter.

What about the welfare of non-Australians? Why not care about them? Why care only about those who are Australian? Why doesn't the welfare of non-Australians come into the equation?

Because we are more important.

[mark_alec]

Let's try to get something from this...

Currently Australia has restrictions on the number of migrants that can come in. You propose that we remove those restrictions. I ask you in what ways will Australia benefit from free migration.

[Mao]

Let's try to get something from this...

Currently Australia has restrictions on the number of migrants that can come in. You propose that we remove those restrictions. I ask you in what ways will Australia benefit from free migration.

why does it have to benefit?

[brendan]

Currently Australia has restrictions on the number of migrants that can come in. You propose that we remove those restrictions. I ask you in what ways will Australia benefit from free migration.

Is it for the people to prove to the government why the government should not intervene and restrict the free movement of people?

Or rather is it for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

You are effectively saying that government ought to intervene to restrict people's freedom as they please, unless someone can prove otherwise.

[costargh]

Sorry, felt compelled to write a one off post again.

If the system as it currently stands limits migration into Australia and you don't think they should be able to do that, then why would the government be compelled to prove to you that there are benefits. To them you're just a number. If you want something changed about it then you wouldn't go to the Minister of Immigration and say "prove to me why the government should be able to restrict to the movement of people". He will laugh in your face.

This is the way the system is at the moment, whether for good or for worse.
If you wish to prove to me that your line of thinking is best, then show me why. I have no real problems with how the system is at the moment and I have expressed views for less restriction for migrants. But I (hypothetically as the Aus Gov) see no benefits of freer migration for people I represent (the Australian people/citizens) so unless there are any arguments brought forward that would make me change my mind why I would I even consider your view?

The government has no onus to prove to us that caps on immigration are good or bad. Unless there is considerable opposition to caps on migration, will they want to even listen to anyones view. And even in that case, the onus is on the people who oppose the system to give reasons and arguments for freer immigration.

[mark_alec]

why does it have to benefit?

Because you wouldn't make a change to policy if you knew it was a bad idea (assuming you had good intentions.)

[mark_alec]

Or rather is it for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

This is irrelevant. Please tell me how Australia benefits from free migration.

[Collin Li]

The government has no onus to prove to us that caps on immigration are good or bad. Unless there is considerable opposition to caps on migration, will they want to even listen to anyones view. And even in that case, the onus is on the people who oppose the system to give reasons and arguments for freer immigration.

Philosophically, a sound basis for introducing policy is one where you must disprove the assumption that we don't need government. Without this, this implies the government has complete control, and then it is up to others to prove to the government that they should have their freedom, that is if they are not detained before they have the chance to express their viewpoints.

I understand that you are talking about what is the case right now, but for the government to have introduced such a policy in the first place, there should have been a justification (the onus of proof), and then the policy would be implemented. Can you recover the logic?

When talking about what ought to be, we do not consider the status quo. We work from sound philosophical bases. You cannot defend a law that should have passed the onus of proof by simply saying that it is implemented now, and hence it is justified so prove to me that it isn't justified.

[Collin Li]

Or rather is it for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

This is irrelevant. Please tell me how Australia benefits from free migration.

Even if Brendan insists on pushing who has the onus of proof, I can list many things:

Free immigration helps to remove friction in the markets, and helps to improve efficiency overall. Labour shortages and skills shortages that would otherwise require a generation of Australians to be brought up with the necessary skills can be satisfied with a simple plane trip.

Where goods and services are significantly cheaper (moreso than the cost of travel), then people will go there. It will help the rate of globalisation increase, which will bring benefits to all corners of the world.

Remember that when the domestic labour unions complain about unfair competition, it is to the detriment of every consumer (including Australian ones) who will face the opportunity cost of being unable to purchase a lower priced good or service, all because the self-righteous union believes that your supplier shouldn't be allowed to employ a more competitively priced employee.