Migration Nightmares Hitting Europe

#581
#581
1972 Grad said:
How do you feel about unrestricted immigration to California, when there isn't enough water for the people who are there now?
Click to expand...

And, there's plenty for those who need it, but with a scarce resource and no free market in water, there is no efficient distribution system to get water to those who want it most.

Keep in mind, as with every other good, when you pay for water you are buying the service of a need/desire. Persons buying ice for the service of cooling their beers are not going to pay much for that service. Persons buying water to boil their children's formula are going to pay a lot for that service.
 
#583
#583
therealUT said:
Don't worry, you haven't tormented me.



Actually, I can call you whatever I please.



You are right, it doesn't jive with my philosophical views. Hence, why I view myself as having committed some grave injustices in my life.

But, at the end of the day, here's the thing: if you really want to avoid being called a racist/bigot/fascist, then maybe you should just stop being one.

If I am wrong in using these labels, then present your argument for your immigration stance. Here's a quick review of the arguments you offered thus far:

(1) You're for immigration so long as it is ordered. Yet, when I offered a solution in which there would exist order, you said that was not good enough.

(2) You're for immigration so long as it is good for the country. Yet, when I offered an interpretation, based on the DoI, on what 'good for the US' ought to mean, you rejected that interpretation and offered no interpretation of your own.

Thus, if you have an argument against unrestricted, yet regulated, immigration that cannot be construed as racist, bigoted, or fascist, then provide one. For, since your position is one in which persons would be denied a basic liberty, namely freedom of movement (which is quite obviously a natural right if there are any natural rights), then the burden of proof is on you. That is, when it comes to questions of restricting rights, the default position which needs no argument is always, "Don't restrict the rights unless there is a clear and obvious necessity."

Analogously, it is never the defender of the freedom of speech who has to offer a positive argument for the freedom of speech; it is those opposed who must offer convincing arguments and the defender of the freedom counters those arguments.

It is never the defender of the freedom to conduct consensual transactions who has to offer a positive argument for consensual transactions.

It is never the defender of the right to life who has to offer positive arguments as to why others cannot kill him/her.

It's the same with freedom of movement. If you are opposed to such a right, then the burden is on you to offer a clear and convincing argument. And, if you cannot offer such an argument or will not offer such an argument, then others are more than free to either simply declare that your position is absolutely unsubstantiated or to wonder about and voice what they see as possible reasons you might have for your conclusion but reasons that you are not willing to share.

I've opined that those reasons are rooted in racism, bigotry, and fascism. And, until you offer your argument, I am more than free to assume such.
Click to expand...


You are free to assume anything you wish. I've already shown your completely useless judgement skills.
 
#584
#584
1972 Grad said:
So, only well to do people in California? Who will do the manual labor?
Click to expand...

Negative. If the cost of water rises significantly (a market correction), most will stop spending on trivial water uses. Water for drinking will be affordable (amazingly, about $1 per liter, like it is for bottled water now), but not free. Persons will shower less, have less swimming pools, etc.

The water will be disturbed much more according to real needs that most will pay for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#586
#586
allvol123 said:
You are free to assume anything you wish. I've already shown your completely useless judgement skills.
Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself, you've yet to show anything. I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to present an argument, though.

Enjoy that, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", fascism. Of course, I'll say this of fascists: they're always led by incredibly charismatic speakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#588
#588
therealUT said:
Don't flatter yourself, you've yet to show anything. I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to present an argument, though.

Enjoy that, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", fascism. Of course, I'll say this of fascists: they're always led by incredibly charismatic speakers.
Click to expand...

I will do whatever I wish to do.

I've yet to see you make a case for your ignorant claims. I do not need to prove that I am not one, you need to prove I am one.

Hopefully, if I am one, i'm not so dumb as to commit my beliefs into actions prior to being able to correct my beliefs.
 
#589
#589
therealUT said:
Negative. If the cost of water rises significantly (a market correction), most will stop spending on trivial water uses. Water for drinking will be affordable (amazingly, about $1 per liter, like it is for bottled water now), but not free. Persons will shower less, have less swimming pools, etc.

The water will be disturbed much more according to real needs that most will pay for.
Click to expand...
I guess that you would have no problem going without a bath, or filling in your swimming pool, or whatever so an illegal immigrant can leave a place that has water, and uses what would be your wife's or children's shower water?
 
#590
#590
1972 Grad said:
I guess that you would have no problem going without a bath, or filling in your swimming pool, or whatever so an illegal immigrant can leave a place that has water, and uses what would be your wife's or children's shower water?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'your wife's water'? Do you mean possession by right? I don't grant that. Water is as much a commodity as oil, gas, corn, etc. Just because we've gotten it for 'free' for so long does not mean it should be free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeverWe'llSever and MercyPercy
#591
#591
therealUT said:
What do you mean by 'your wife's water'? Do you mean possession by right? I don't grant that. Water is as much a commodity as oil, gas, corn, etc. Just because we've gotten it for 'free' for so long does not mean it should be free.
Click to expand...

By your wife's water, I mean the water that she would have used to shower before an illegal used it instead. If he had stayed where he was, both he and your wife could have bathed. Now, only one can. Would you care? What if it was the last bottle of water to drink?

By the way, we have to pay for water here. It is far from free.

Edit: Never mind. I get your drift. First come , first serve, until it runs out, or sells to the highest bidder. Everybody else gets to move to another area.
 
Last edited:
#592
#592
1972 Grad said:
By your wife's water, I mean the water that she would have used to shower before an illegal used it instead. If he had stayed where he was, both he and your wife could have bathed. Now, only one can. Would you care? What if it was the last bottle of water to drink?

By the way, we have to pay for water here. It is far from free.
Click to expand...

It's so subsidized by every government it's damn near free, and very much below what market value would be.

If water were marketed and we paid market value and someone else took it, that's theft.

Basically, the water shortage in California is a lesson in socialized commodities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#595
#595
therealUT said:
Negative. If the cost of water rises significantly (a market correction), most will stop spending on trivial water uses. Water for drinking will be affordable (amazingly, about $1 per liter, like it is for bottled water now), but not free. Persons will shower less, have less swimming pools, etc.

The water will be disturbed much more according to real needs that most will pay for.
Click to expand...

This
 
#596
#596
therealUT said:
It's so subsidized by every government it's damn near free, and very much below what market value would be.

If water were marketed and we paid market value and someone else took it, that's theft.

Basically, the water shortage in California is a lesson in socialized commodities.
Click to expand...
Your definition of "damn near free" and mine are different. $1,800 for a 3/4" water tap and $30 or $40 a month for water, and that much again for sewer is not damn near free in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#598
#598
1972 Grad said:
Your definition of "damn near free" and mine are different. $1,800 for a 3/4" water tap and $30 or $40 a month for water, and that much again for sewer is not damn near free in my book.
Click to expand...

Less than $1/day for water is damn near free.

Your $1,800 tap, I presume, is a one-time (minus maintenance) up front cost for water until the well runs dry, yes? If so, that's also damn near free.

For one person, we're talking probably one shower per day, water running while shaving, water running while brushing teeth, flushing the toilet two to three times, washing hands, etc. That's at least a gallon and for many as much as two or three gallons. Per day.

And, we've yet to include water that is imbibed or used in cooking, cleaning dishes, laundry, etc. Moreover, most households have multiple residents.

Water is stupidly cheap, and because it is so cheap it is easily wasted.
 
Last edited:
#599
#599
n_huffhines said:
This
Click to expand...
I'm just having a hard time grasping the thought that you guys would let in 6 million people from Latvia, Guatemala, Pakistan ,and Somalia into California to use up the water of people already there who own the land. Then , the legal residents would have to move, or pay triple the price of water because their natural resources have been raped by people who left an area with water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#600
#600
1972 Grad said:
I'm just having a hard time grasping the thought that you guys would let in 6 million people from Latvia, Guatemala, Pakistan ,and Somalia into California to use up the water of people already there who own the land. Then , the legal residents would have to move, or pay triple the price of water because their natural resources have been raped by people who left an area with water.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

The persons pumping water out of their property would have a market to sell the water on, and without having to compete with government subsidized water, the market would be lucrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top