SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration

Skybird · 02-06-14, 04:56 PM

Point is, while people have the right to ask in other places - where there already are established communities - whether these communities would accept them to move in and live there, NOBODY has the right to move somewhere and simply demand to be accepted there (if that place already is occupied by another community). You cannot slam in the door somewhere, storm the house and demand the housekeeper: "Here I am, you have to live with it, now get me fed." So, said community has any right to weigh the question of the foreigner, to set conditions, and to ask what the newcomer can and will attribute to said community something that the community values sufficiently to accept a foreigner in. And said community also has any right there is to accept foreigners - OR NOT.

A community therefore has any right to be choosy and let people in that it needs or wants, and reject those it cannot need by their professions and different or lacking skills and talents. There is no claim to make that you go somewhere and then demand the locals to pay for your presence and care for your needs. You are allowed to ask - and them are allowed to say Yes or No. The place already is theirs, not yours, they make the rules, not you.

That any foreigner from any part of Europe has any claim to make for social welfare payments in any other EU country, is idiocy. It rejects reason and sanity, and illustrates the EU megalomaniac craving for recognition as the ultimate centralised reign over 500 million people who as subjects to the state's ultimate authority and power should have as much control over this tyranny as Soviet citizens had over decision making and power in the central committee - none.

Funny that right now I just read it again in a science fiction novel, Frank Herbert's third Dune novel, Children of Dune (edited: this is the original English version):

Chapter 28
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms.
No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the
aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the
interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty,
oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.

Written 1975. Sounds like 100% Hoppe in 2001.

In a debate, a long lasting debate with UnderseaLanceCorporal several years ago, I said the same.

02-06-14, 04:56 PM	#28
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,800 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Point is, while people have the right to *ask* in other places - where there already are established communities - whether these communities would accept them to move in and live there, NOBODY has the right to move somewhere and simply demand to be accepted there (if that place already is occupied by another community). You cannot slam in the door somewhere, storm the house and demand the housekeeper: "Here I am, you have to live with it, now get me fed." So, said community has any right to weigh the question of the foreigner, to set conditions, and to ask what the newcomer can and will attribute to said community something that the community values sufficiently to accept a foreigner in. And said community also has any right there is to accept foreigners - OR NOT. A community therefore has any right to be choosy and let people in that it needs or wants, and reject those it cannot need by their professions and different or lacking skills and talents. There is no claim to make that you go somewhere and then demand the locals to pay for your presence and care for your needs. You are allowed to ask - and them are allowed to say Yes or No. The place already is theirs, not yours, they make the rules, not you. That any foreigner from any part of Europe has any claim to make for social welfare payments in any other EU country, is idiocy. It rejects reason and sanity, and illustrates the EU megalomaniac craving for recognition as the ultimate centralised reign over 500 million people who as subjects to the state's ultimate authority and power should have as much control over this tyranny as Soviet citizens had over decision making and power in the central committee - none. Funny that right now I just read it again in a science fiction novel, Frank Herbert's third Dune novel, Children of Dune (edited: this is the original English version): Chapter 28 Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy. Written 1975. Sounds like 100% Hoppe in 2001. In a debate, a long lasting debate with UnderseaLanceCorporal several years ago, I said the same. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 02-06-14 at 06:47 PM.