| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I've been wondering if the people writing about extortionate prices really mean exorbitant prices.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | Prices being higher than you would like is not market failure or market inefficiency. Everything I've ever purchased, I wished the price had been lower. Of course there is demand for goods and services at lower prices. All consumers want lower prices. Can carriers increase profits by charging lower roaming prices? No? Then the market is working, connecting buyers and sellers at prices they accept. You got priced out? I'm sorry. You can't blame a seller for taking the best offer. |
Except, prices are not higher if you buy a local sim. You can call international and all for a minute fraction of the price over roaming. And those sims use the same infrastructure that the roaming service would use. There is not just demand for lower prices, there are solutions, inefficient solutions, to satisfy that demand. So that whole "market is the most efficient way of providing goods and services" nonsense is clearly shown to be false.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome.
Last edited by runningwithscissors on Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | I've been wondering if the people writing about extortionate prices really mean exorbitant prices. |
I simply assumed they did. 
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | People who frequently pay exorbitant roaming fees are idiots who signed up for the wrong plan. It's a simple as that.
The free market treats idiots much like the rest of nature. |
But... but... I thought those idiots were proof that people are willing to pay exorbitant prices and those who don't are just freedom hating commie whiners.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Market freedom and market efficiency are not the same thing. Also, telecommunications is neither a frictionless nor absolutely free market.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Last edited by BoneKracker on Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:46 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Market freedom and market efficiency are not the same thing. Also, telecommunications is neither a frictionless nor absolutely free market. |
Ah, no true free-market. So that's what the problem is. Government causes them to price-gouge customers. Why didn't I see that argument coming?
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Market freedom and market efficiency are not the same thing. Also, telecommunications is neither a frictionless nor absolutely free market. |
Ah, no true free-market. So that's what the problem is. Government causes them to price-gouge customers. Why didn't I see that argument coming? |
Nice try. The problem here is not the market's "freeness". It's the market's "non-freeness". If you had a hundred alternatives, you'd pick the one that provided the closest to what you wanted, and you'd be happy. But you only have three or four alternatives. Why is that? Is the "free market" causing that? The free market is creating barriers to entry?
Furthermore, domestic and international calls are not identical in cost (to the provider). Why is that? Is the "fee market" creating arbitrary legal jurisdictions in which contracts are enforced or not enforced which in turn drive the scope of corporate operations, therefore causing a need for network-to-network switching, multi-currency transaction-brokering and multi-language operations? Is the "free market" causing that?
Everything is the fault of teh free market! Gee, why didn't I see that argument coming? 
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Last edited by BoneKracker on Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richk449
Guru
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Market freedom and market efficiency are not the same thing. Also, telecommunications is neither a frictionless nor absolutely free market. |
Ah, no true free-market. So that's what the problem is. Government causes them to price-gouge customers. Why didn't I see that argument coming? |
Actually, I am surprised that argument didn't come sooner, seeing how it is true and all. Plus, it is more useful than just claiming that the market is working efficiently no matter what the results, because markets are efficient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runningwithscissors wrote: |
You know what the problem is? The american free market morons have never been poor and never fucking seen poverty. Their idea of poverty is not being able to afford a widescreen TV. They don't know crap about how it is to have people die because some landowner starved them or a loan shark enslaved generations of their family. They live in their happy wonderland of plenty, oblivious to history and the struggle to eke out a life for people living in poverty. It is something beyond comprehension for them. |
oh, and South Asia has a monopoly on poverty?
The people who settled this country were wholly unfamiliar with feudal monarchy?
LOL gtfo. That shit doesn't pass the smell test for anyone that's seen enough of the world to call you on your bullshit. You think poverty in India is because of the failure of the government to adequately provide for its people, you're getting warmer, it's a government failure alright, but it's a failure of government to get the hell out of the way and let their people have a free, fair, legitimate shot, at providing for themselves. How long were you under a communist government? How long was India a part of the Raj? Oh wait, I forget, everyone in India was riding around in flying cars from country club to country club, then the mean old free market dun come along and killed all the grass. Would you wager it's your increasingly liberalized economic system that's to blame for the poverty, or the idiotic ancient caste system you haven't figured out a way to get rid of? Of course, the solution is clearly to trust the government - who by its very nature is corrupt - with increasing regulatory power.
India isn't special. They aren't dealing with anything Latin America hasn't dealt with - some better than others. But oh, look at the differences in how the various latin american countries have dealt with poverty, all of which was exclusively brought on by the catholocism-induced socialist hysteria brought on by the damn pope. How well have the ones fared that tried to control and manage the market? How well have the ones fared who liberalized their markets? I'll give you a hint, you'd be better off planning your summer home in Chile or Peru than you would Venezuela, Bolivia, or Argentina. Corrupt governments and cronyism create poverty, not genuinely free markets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | Furthermore, domestic and international calls are not identical in cost (to the provider). Why is that? Is the "fee market" creating arbitrary legal jurisdictions in which contracts are enforced or not enforced which in turn drive the scope of corporate operations, therefore causing a need for network-to-network switching, multi-currency transaction-brokering and multi-language operations? Is the "free market" causing that? |
A call from point A in country foo to point B in country bar is going to follow a similar route either way. Including all the network-switching and inter-national exchanges. If you have a local sim in country foo, the call would cost a fraction of the cost than if you had a sim with roaming from country bar.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | Furthermore, domestic and international calls are not identical in cost (to the provider). Why is that? Is the "fee market" creating arbitrary legal jurisdictions in which contracts are enforced or not enforced which in turn drive the scope of corporate operations, therefore causing a need for network-to-network switching, multi-currency transaction-brokering and multi-language operations? Is the "free market" causing that? |
A call from point A in country foo to point B in country bar is going to follow a similar route either way. Including all the network-switching and inter-national exchanges. If you have a local sim in country foo, the call would cost a fraction of the cost than if you had a sim with roaming from country bar. |
That has to do with the transaction brokering and international operations issues I mentioned.
Whether that difference in price is "fair" or not (limited to the actual cost difference plus some reasonable profit margin) has to do with the arbitrary legal jurisdictions and contract enforcement, and monopolistic behavior (both competitive and exploitative) of the involved companies, which is not a feature of free markets, but a feature of markets in which barriers to entry have been created, typically by things like government subsidies, tariffs, and so on.
So, in short, not only is what you are saying "not correct", it's pretty much the opposite of correct.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | oh, and South Asia has a monopoly on poverty?
The people who settled this country were wholly unfamiliar with feudal monarchy? |
And if you'd seen the history of your own country, you'd know how it was a shithole with slavery and indentured servitude until *gasp*, the government outlawed it.
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | LOL gtfo. That shit doesn't pass the smell test for anyone that's seen enough of the world to call you on your bullshit. You think poverty in India is because of the failure of the government to adequately provide for its people, you're getting warmer, it's a government failure alright, but it's a failure of government to get the hell out of the way and let their people have a free, fair, legitimate shot, at providing for themselves. How long were you under a communist government? How long was India a part of the Raj? Oh wait, I forget, everyone in India was riding around in flying cars from country club to country club, then the mean old free market dun come along and killed all the grass. Would you wager it's your increasingly liberalized economic system that's to blame for the poverty, or the idiotic ancient caste system you haven't figured out a way to get rid of? Of course, the solution is clearly to trust the government - who by its very nature is corrupt - with increasing regulatory power. |
Millions died every few years due to food shortages and famines in the oh so free capitalist Raj than they ever did after. They made the potato famine look like a picnic. After independence, the government made a priority to develop agriculture and free the farm labourers from serfdom, so that never happened again.
But according to you, it was certainly much more awesome during the Raj, when the free flow of goods from India to the West and vice-versa created never-before seen prosperity.
| Quote: | | India isn't special. They aren't dealing with anything Latin America hasn't dealt with - some better than others. But oh, look at the differences in how the various latin american countries have dealt with poverty, all of which was exclusively brought on by the catholocism-induced socialist hysteria brought on by the damn pope. How well have the ones fared that tried to control and manage the market? How well have the ones fared who liberalized their markets? I'll give you a hint, you'd be better off planning your summer home in Chile or Peru than you would Venezuela, Bolivia, or Argentina. Corrupt governments and cronyism create poverty, not genuinely free markets. |
Nobody said India is special. But seeing poverty gives you perspective on the real world that you don't get from wholesale ideologies. Practical solutions work better than ideological dogma. Liberal economies solve some problems. Government intervention also has been proven to solve problems. You know that. You were an out-and-out protectionist commie over the issue of Mexicans hopping the border and wanting mummy government to step in. Most of us are part-time commies. Some admit it.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runningwithscissors wrote: | Millions died every few years due to food shortages and famines in the oh so free capitalist Raj than they ever did after. They made the potato famine look like a picnic. After independence, the government made a priority to develop agriculture and free the farm labourers from serfdom, so that never happened again.
But according to you, it was certainly much more awesome during the Raj, when the free flow of goods from India to the West and vice-versa created never-before seen prosperity.
|
How in the sam hell was the Raj anything resembling "free" or "capitalist" ? You realize that's the same damn colonial system we freed ourselves from in the late 18th century yeah? Sorry you guys just suck at it more than we do I guess. Then again we didn't have a caste system to contend with.
| runningwithscissors wrote: |
Government intervention also has been proven to solve problems. You know that. You were an out-and-out protectionist commie over the issue of Mexicans hopping the border and wanting mummy government to step in. Most of us are part-time commies. Some admit it. |
fairly piss poor comparison. Providing for defence of one's borders versus intervening in the market - you're seriously comparing the two? What in the blue fuck books have you been reading that national defence by the federal government is classed as "protectionist commie" ? Defence is one of if not the only legitimate function of the federal government. The federal government doesn't want to do anything about it, so the states and private citizens want to do something about it - but the federal government refuses to allow the states or private individuals to do anything about it. Are you sure that argument's really helping your case? The folks clamoring for the border to be shut down don't care who does the job, but if the fed isn't going to do it, we want them to get the hell out of the way and let either the states or private individuals to do it. Maybe you don't get heaps of exposure to US media, but dear lord have you missed the boat on that one. The states and DoJ are virtually at war with each other over this, with DoJ insisting there's nothing to do, and that even if there is the states have no authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
rws is right about one thing : national defense in the US is completely communistic, and borders are bullshit made up by politicians.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Last edited by dmitchell on Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runningwithscissors
Guru
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Location: the third world
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | How in the sam hell was the Raj anything resembling "free" or "capitalist" ? |
Booming trade with the West. Lots of spices/tea/cotton/whatever flowing out lots of money being paid for it. Didn't help make the place any more prosperous.
| Quote: | | You realize that's the same damn colonial system we freed ourselves from in the late 18th century yeah? Sorry you guys just suck at it more than we do I guess. Then again we didn't have a caste system to contend with. |
You are the colonial Raj. Ask your Native Americans.
| Quote: | | fairly piss poor comparison. Providing for defence of one's borders versus intervening in the market - you're seriously comparing the two? |
Intervention in the labour market, since the vast majority of them are economic migrants.
| Quote: | | What in the blue fuck books have you been reading that national defence by the federal government is classed as "protectionist commie" ? |
People want to trade their services in your country. You're stopping them from doing it. Classic protectionism.
| Quote: | | Defence is one of if not the only legitimate function of the federal government. |
Why?
| Quote: | | The federal government doesn't want to do anything about it, so the states and private citizens want to do something about it - but the federal government refuses to allow the states or private individuals to do anything about it. |
The state government is still a government. Is there some particular reason why they must be compelled to provide you with protection? Why can't the same job be done by private firms? Isn't favouring the private option the logical conclusion for libertarians when made to choose between government and private services? Or can they be hypocrites just this once?
| Quote: | | Are you sure that argument's really helping your case? |
Absolutely. It is a sound argument.
| Quote: | | The folks clamoring for the border to be shut down don't care who does the job, but if the fed isn't going to do it, we want them to get the hell out of the way and let either the states or private individuals to do it. |
Why do you want to do it? Other than wanting to stop them from trading within your country? The vast majority of them only want opportunities to trade their services in your country.
_________________
At some stage, the Hindus locked on to the nation destroying concepts like ahimsa (non-violence), shanti (peace), satya (truth) — the ‘ass’ syndrome.
Last edited by runningwithscissors on Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | Res is right about one thing : national defense in the US is completely communistic, and borders are bullshit made up by politicians. |
i flirted with the idea of throwing in an "unless youre dmitchell" caveat there. probably should have |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | Booming trade with the West. Lots of spices/tea/cotton/whatever flowing out lots of money being paid for it. Didn't help make the place any more prosperous. |
booming trade with the British monarchy. Hardly a free market.
| runningwithscissors wrote: |
You are the colonial Raj. Ask your Native Americans. |
Sure thing, while I'm at it I'll ask them what government intervention has done for them in the past few centuries. They've been given more handouts than any other ethnic group in the US, and they're unequivocally the poorest, least educated, worst off ethnic group in the US.
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | Intervention in the labour market, since the vast majority of them are economic migrants. |
That they're coming as economic migrants doesn't make it intervention in the labor market.
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | People want to trade their services in your country. You're stopping them from doing it. Classic protectionism. |
Migrating to the US without authorization is illegal. Their motivation for trying to come here is irrelevant if they're doing so illegally.
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | Why? |
It's one of the few roles outlined in the constitution, albeit not in the form we have today.
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | The state government is still a government. Is there some particular reason why they must be compelled to provide you with protection? Why can't the same job be done by private firms? Isn't favouring the private option the logical conclusion for libertarians when made to choose between government and private services? Or can they be hypocrites just this once? |
It's a question of authority. The citizenry has no legal authority for enforcement of law. Whether they should or not is another discussion, but they don't. Private citizens would be tossed in jail if they were to round up a militia and start patrolling the borders, short of those doing so on their private property.
| runningwithscissors wrote: | | Why do you want to do it? Other than wanting to stop them from trading within your country? The vast majority of them only want opportunities to trade their services in your country. |
Because the people of this country should have some oversight into who they allow in. When people are allowed in illegally there's zero ability to check into their backgrounds, figure out which of these are criminals or otherwise. There's no ability to document their presence and make them pay into the same tax system everyone else here does. Just as it's my decision to selectively permit people to enter onto my property, and good reason for being so. The "trade" you describe is flat illegal. Should they wish to engage in trade according to the laws of this country, fine, have at it. But just as every other country on the planet is going to want to at the very least do a criminal background check before they grant someone residency, just as once granted residency that person becomes a contributor to the tax pool, we want those same things here (well, except dmitchell) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | Just as it's my decision to selectively permit people to enter onto my property, and good reason for being so. |
The country isn't anyone's property. Everything else you wrote was weaksauce too. rws definitely has the upper hand here. Which is funny, because I know he is just playing devil's advocate. He doesn't actually have any problem with protectionism, he just likes pointing out the absurdity of your position (and to be fair, most other people's position too).
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | I flirted with the idea of throwing in an "unless youre dmitchell" caveat there. probably should have |
You done goofed.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | booming trade with the British monarchy. Hardly a free market. |
The British monarchy was a minor speck of a consumer of Indian produce compared to the vastly wider British market. Still is.
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | Migrating to the US without authorization is illegal. Their motivation for trying to come here is irrelevant if they're doing so illegally. |
It's illegal because the government declared it to be illegal. Protectionism is still protectionism.
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | It's one of the few roles outlined in the constitution, albeit not in the form we have today. |
Actually, there's nothing in the constitution about immigration policy. There's just nothing baring them from running down immigrants, either.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: |
The country isn't anyone's property. |
man of straw, observe the purpose of using "just as"
the country is the sovereign territory of the United States (though you don't recognize it, I get it), and provision for its defence as sovereign territory as a furtherance to its constituents' individual property rights is allowed for under the constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| richk449 wrote: | | Plus, it is more useful than just claiming that the market is working efficiently no matter what the results, because markets are efficient. |
You still don't get it. :lol:
The market is like a car. You don't say the efficiency of a car depends on where it takes you. It depends on how it takes you there. Markets "take you there" very efficiently. You might not like where you end up.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aidanjt wrote: |
The British monarchy was a minor speck of a consumer of Indian produce compared to the vastly wider British market. Still is.
|
a British market controlled by the British monarchy.
| aidanjt wrote: |
It's illegal because the government declared it to be illegal. Protectionism is still protectionism.
|
the latter is a non-sequitur
another strawman. actually, defence is absolutely outlined as a permitted role of the federal government under the US constitution. Enforcement of whatever laws established at the federal level is absolutely a permitted role of the federal government under the US constitution, of which one concerns naturalization.
If you'd read anything beyond <title></title> in the link you posted, you'd fine that on your very own source control of naturalization is granted under the US constitution. Not specific enough to include immigration? That's why we have the SCOTUS, that ruled immigration is covered under congressional powers to regulate naturalization. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | a British market controlled by the British monarchy. |
Only if you have the British history knowledge of an American.
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | the latter is a non-sequitur |
How can something self-evident not follow?
| cach0rr0 wrote: | | another strawman. actually, defence is absolutely outlined as a permitted role of the federal government under the US constitution. |
Defence isn't immigration. Defence protects the border against armies. A rag-tag series of impoverished and unarmed foreign citizens don't qualify as an army.
| cach0rr0 wrote: | Enforcement of whatever laws established at the federal level is absolutely a permitted role of the federal government under the US constitution, of which one concerns naturalization.
If you'd read anything beyond <title></title> in the link you posted, you'd fine that on your very own source control of naturalization is granted under the US constitution. Not specific enough to include immigration? That's why we have the SCOTUS, that ruled immigration is covered under congressional powers to regulate naturalization. |
Naturalization isn't immigration. Immigration is assumed to be implied by the naturalization process, but it's still assumed, none the less.. Just as the vast majority of laws are.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cach0rr0
Moderator
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 4117
Location: Houston, Republic of Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aidanjt wrote: |
Defence isn't immigration. Defence protects the border against armies. A rag-tag series of impoverished and unarmed foreign citizens don't qualify as an army.
|
You're quite correct, defence isn't immigration. You are incorrect in asserting that I claimed the two as equivalent; ergo, strawman.
Defence also isn't restricted to combating armies. Nor is enforcement of federal law limited exclusively to provision of defence. The two are separate, and both permissible under the constitution.
| aidanjt wrote: |
Naturalization isn't immigration. Immigration is assumed to be implied by the naturalization process, but it's still assumed, none the less.. Just as the vast majority of laws are. |
Again, strawman. I never used the two synonymously, nor equated the two. Your own source, however - again had you bothered to read it - cited the SCOTUS ruling that immigration control fell under the federal government's right to regulate naturalization, as outlined in the constitution. You're welcome to disagree with the court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
