rc3.org Rafe Colburn on software development (and other topics)

Rafe, you are beginning to sound more and more like a libertarian

I agree with you with regards to open immigration. A free and open economy needs free and open immigration.

There are two main challenges to open immigration. Foremost is our government’s generosity. Does being in this country guarantee a person the right to free healthcare, a free education, free food stamps, etc? If it does, we will attact the type of people we DO NOT want in this country. The second challenge is national secuirty. Of course, we do a poor job securing our borders right now, so open immigration wouldn’t make this worse. However, it is still an issue that needs to be tackled. We should know who we let into this country, how long and where they plan to stay and the nature of their visit.

My $0.02 worth, inflation sucks! You just don’t get much for your money anymore

Posted by Jeff on 2 May 2006 @ 1pm

Jeff: Does being in this country guarantee a person the right to free healthcare, a free education, free food stamps, etc?

I’ve been in this country my whole life and I have yet to see any of this free healthcare, education and food stamps you mention. Where are they? I’m tired of paying $600/month for jakey healthcare!

We should know who we let into this country, how long and where they plan to stay and the nature of their visit.

That hasn’t been an issue in the 230 years of this country’s existence. One might claim that 9/11 changed everything, but take the example of the various nutjobs we grew here right at home: “Anthrax terrorist(s)”—as yet uncaught—and Timothy McVeigh/Terry Nichols, Jim Jones, Son of Sam, Richard Rodriguez, David Koresh (maybe), etc. All of these individuals caused extensive loss of life/terror, and no amount of border controls would have stopped them.

Personally, I’d rather take the funds we’re going to throw at the problem (with dubious results) and actualy invest it in ourselves, either via better schools or healthcare.

Posted by Bryan on 2 May 2006 @ 4pm

If you are born in a fading town in Kansas and want to move to Chicago to seek employment, there are no barriers to doing so.

is this really true? what about if you share a truck with your whole family and have no other means of transportation (let alone money to fly)? what if your shack lifestyle in Arkansas is built around subsistance farming and a barter economy, and you have no way to house or feed yourself in a new town until employment appears? I think we’re pretty far from having true portability, especially from the places most worth escaping. (look at how many people stuck around in New Orleans waiting for Katrina because they had a dog or no car or . . .)

Posted by acm on 3 May 2006 @ 10am

Sorry, I meant no legal barriers. Obviously there are logistical barriers, but that’s true of moving from one country to another as well.

Posted by Rafe on 3 May 2006 @ 10am

Excellent and concise anlysis. I just wanted to make the point that allowing inmigrants to stay in the country doesn’t mean providing free healthcare, etc to them. Most illegal inmigrants have jobs and many of them pay taxes which entitles them in my opinion to some type of benefit. The point is, with legalization, those who don’t pay taxes now will be more likely to do so and this will be an big advantage over the status quo.

regards

Posted by Doug on 3 May 2006 @ 4pm

What’s absurd is your willingness to disregard the entire aparatus of government and the fundamental social contract upon which it rests – consent of the governed.

What is the benefit of just wishing away national laws and the national interest? You’re saying essentially, that our court system should apply its own set of rule to anyone arbitrarily. With no national borders, you essentially give license to an unlimited aegis of US laws, politicians, judges, legistures.. essentially the whole of government.

Better yet, think Microsoft. They want to be the borg. Why shouldn’t their OS rules apply arbitrarily everywhere? Why not just say GPL every piece of code.. I mean why disturb Turing’s law.. everything is universal right?

The reason you don’t, in case you haven’t figured it out, is because of the consent of the governed. We voluntarily pay into the system because it conforms to our desires. We meaning citizens with a vested interest. Those of us who pay into the system and agree to be bound by its rules have something to gain or lose by being arbitrary with borders. In either case you can’t just wish away the convention of nations, national laws and national borders. So long as we are nations with constitutions as organizing documents, the system works.

Now I have enjoyed the fanciful speculations of ‘The Diamond Age’ as much as anyone. When and if you become a member of a phile which can support and protect its membership as well as a nation can, I’ll readily join. But I have a very difficult time believing that the guidelines for any manifesto of such an organization will have been so thoroughly debugged and fieldtested at the Constitution of the United States of America. In this regard, if you can find a Linus Torvalds of phile kernel building, I’ll wait until it’s way way outta beta. Until then, I’m keeping my passport American.

Posted by Cobb on 15 May 2006 @ 11pm

Very happy to read your post. My solution for immigration? Open the gates. Of course, it is a politcal no-no. Or, like time-share condos, time-share countires. Or just out and out trades. You want to leave Mexico and come to USA? OK, let’s trade countries, you come here, we’ll go there. I have been living in India, sort of outsourcing the outsourcing, and it is great, but difficult to be legal, and I am damn happy that the gate was open, to whatever degree. It is one world, one neighborhood, nationalism is a disease, but that will get me NO votes!

Posted by ana ma roopa on 24 May 2006 @ 4am