James Devereaux: Central Planning Doesn’t Work Internationally, Either

It is baffling how some who defend freedom and free markets domestically are willing to abandon those assumptions when considering the border and beyond. Our immigration, foreign policy, and international relation policies often endorse a command and control framework and ignore relevant economic insights that promote freedom.

Trade, immigration, foreign aid, and military intervention all illustrate the point. All reflect anti-market attitudes to some degree and instead rely on central planning.

Trade

The United States has generally taken a liberal approach to trade with other nations. Yet, the history of free trade is still marked with notable illiberal turns from the general pro-trade attitude. The most prominent example may be the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the Great Depression. These tariffs possibly exacerbated the economic downturn by raising the costs of various goods and destroying “the vulnerable capital structure” which was recovering from the recent stock market crash.

High tariffs, protectionism against foreign goods, is centralized planning.

Yet, despite a general pro-trade attitude, we have often fought a rhetorical battle against economic nativism. The slogan “Buy American” is frequently popular, and though we have generally avoided high costs to import and export since the Second World War, we have found roundabout methods of discriminating against foreign goods, subsidies being the primary example. Subsidies such as those reaped by sugar and other agriculture industries often exist to protect against foreign commodities, often under vague and baffling national security justifications. Once examined, there appears to be no real discernible interest outside of protectionism.

High tariffs, protectionism against foreign goods, is centralized planning. In this instance, a central body selects a few domestic winners instead of by market processes—the actions of consumers and producers—in order to arrange the economy as those in charge believe best.

High tariffs are again becoming politically popular, as some describe current trade arrangements as “unfair.” This is setting a course for a trade war between nations, specifically China. Part of the desire to engage in ultimately harmful trade policy arises from economic misunderstandings regarding trade deficits and comparative advantage, but some of the trouble arises from a hubristic planner mentality which believes the planner knows best which items should originate in the United States and which should not. With this arrangement, most everyone loses, especially in the long run.

Immigration

The current immigration system is highly restricted. With an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants (with a few exceptions) allowed into the United States, and a per-country limit divided among that number, the demand for legal entry far exceeds the supply. This is the type of cap which encourages gaming and illegal activity. What I call the “black market signal” illustrates the point. With an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, we see that the lack of supply for entry creates a strong incentive to come in without authorization, much like price caps or bans on other goods or services, a hard cap on immigration encourages illegal entrants. The black or illegal market signals a need to increase the supply.

Some believe we can discriminate based on merit; those who are most qualified deserve to migrate. But this suffers from the same central planning fallacy.

Caps on markets often create perverse incentives, especially when market demand far exceeds the allotment. The closer the price to the natural balance between the supply and demand, the lower the incentive to find alternatives. With imposed limitations on a good or service the demand for work-a-rounds and substitutes increases. In this instance, illegal immigration is such a substitute for difficult to attain legal immigration.

Some believe we can discriminate based on merit; those who are most qualified deserve to migrate. But this suffers from the same central planning fallacy. There is certainly a demand for high-skill workers, but that is not to say there is no demand for other types of workers. The idea that a central planner knows what levels of skill are in high demand or may arise with more immigration have yielded to the hubris of central planners.

One bright spot is once people become more aware of how difficult it is to legally migrate to or remain in the United States they become more sympathetic to reform. That doesn’t mean that the attitude toward immigration is a default market approach, but at the least, it indicates the possibility of a more market-orientated attitude than current policy reflects.

There is also the reasonable argument that immigrants are not simply goods crossing borders but are people, and people come with costs. As George Borjas puts it, “We wanted workers, but got people instead.” Though this is true, there are costs to immigration, it is worth putting this into perspective: the overall effect of immigration is positive, and we are probably imposing greater material costs on all involved with our current restrictions. Some studies estimate huge worldwide increases in wealth with permissive immigration policies, but the easiest compelling case to note is that many migrants are willing to take substantial risks and bear costs to improve their lot and find opportunity here. In truth, the cap we have placed is one on individual opportunity.

I heard it said the best immigration policy is to have one. But the truth of the matter is we have one that is incompatible with human nature and economic incentives; as a result, it appears we have none at all.

International Aid

In truth, we tend to exaggerate how much aid the United States government gives to other countries. It is, in reality, a very small amount of the total annual budget, often less than one percent of the budget. Despite the low amount, changes to the current approach may be justified on the grounds that the aid often fails to achieve the developmental goals for which it was intended. Often times foreign aid, well intended, ends up bankrolling human right violations. Most importantly, it fails to recognize the rights of those it is meant to help.

Economist William Easterly explains:

The sad neglect of the rights of the poor… follows from the ideas behind the global war on poverty. Those who work in development prefer to focus on technical solutions to the poor’s problems, such as forestry projects, clean water supplies, or nutritional supplements. Development experts advise leaders they perceive to be benevolent autocrats to implement these technical solutions. The international professionals perpetrate an illusion that poverty is purely a technical problem, distracting attention away from the real cause: the unchecked power of the state against poor people without rights. The dictators whom experts are advising are not the solution — they are the problem.

His thinking has helped shift some of the approaches to foreign aid, but at the heart of it all, effective aid has been limited because of a centralized approach. In the alternatives, adopting an approach that reinforces individual rights to property, provides access to markets, and respects personal autonomy would be more effective.

Similarly, Nobel laureate Angus Deaton notes that counties that receive the most aid in sub-Saharan Africa are the least democratic, a possible explanation being that much of the past foreign aid has removed the incentive for internal reforms. He observes that those on the ground, the people, are better able to decide what helps improve their condition, not a central planner, be it our government, theirs, or even well-meaning non-governmental organizations.

Better aid has been addressed by various thinkers. Chris Blattman suggests the best aid is simply cash donations, while others encourage employing a thoughtful, tailored approach to aid such as effective altruism. Regardless of the details, without first discarding notions of central planning and then embracing encouragement of and respect for individual rights, solutions will fail to reach the desired ends.

Military Intervention

The United States currently has over 800 oversea bases. That is several times more than any potential geopolitical foe with Russia topping the list with nine, while our allies France and United Kingdom have about 12 to each of them. Not only that, but the US is constantly mired in foreign conflicts, having intervened in at least five other countries since the Iraq/Afghanistan war. It is clear the United States has a military-industrial complex problem. The propensity for military action has come to define the United States at home and abroad.

Much of this over-extension of the United States military may or may not be justified on moral grounds, but it is certainly questionable on economic terms. And this is more than the large price-tag we see come out of the Pentagon, which is a few times greater than the next biggest spender. It’s about applying economic principles to military interventions.

As economist David Henderson astutely observes, Hayek’s insight on the knowledge problem is applicable to foreign policy, which warns against intervention due to the difficulties in knowing the “particularities of time and place.” As Henderson states:

When governments intervene in the domestic economy, they almost always do damage. One of the main reasons is that they don’t have—and can’t have—the information they would need to plan the economy well. As Nobel Prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek argued in a classic 1945 article, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” the information that matters most for economics decisions is held in the minds of the hundreds of millions of market participants.

Similarly, when governments try to intervene in other countries, they are even more ignorant about those countries than they are about their own. This can have disastrous consequences. Consider the Middle East and ISIS. Where did ISIS come from? As President Reagan used to say, let’s take a trip down memory lane.

That is to say, relevant information is difficult to obtain—if not impossible—thus the costs and probability of successful intervention weighed against the benefits require a cautious approach. The nature of the relevant information for a successful campaign is diffused and dispersed among the population of the relevant country. How a people react, and will react in years to come, to foreign intervention often leads to negative second-order effects and unintended consequences. These results are hard to predict and consequently, the United States’s record of military intervention is mixed at best.

This is further complicated by the fact that political incentives are often short-run and at times contrast with the ultimate improvement of a conflicted area. Regardless of the initial good intentions and policy goals, intervention is easily captured by politics.

There are a lot of corrupt, illiberal, and even dangerous governments in the world. The relevant question is, then, how do we best incentivize reform? Through trade, relationships, travel, and example or military action? Though China remains a likely geopolitical opponent, trade has likely done more to establish peace than any military posturing. All things considered, a more hesitant approach is merited.

Freedom Is the Answer

Instead of central planning for others, we should embrace presumptions and policies which encourage freedom.

There are a few explanations for the high tolerance of central planning abroad. First, it may be due to what Bryan Caplan calls anti-foreign bias. Generally speaking, and not just in the United States but everywhere, there is a strong attachment to that which is similar and familiar over foreign. As a result, we frequently shape policy and vote to reflect that bias, which means we are more willing to aid those who look and sound familiar over those who do not. This bias is likely compounded by the fact that it is difficult to perceive the costs of policies implemented abroad.

Second, government has a central planning bias generally. It is in the nature of government to “do something” unless limited by politics or constitutional restraints. That isn’t to say government actors do not find a way to work around those limitations, but it is also no coincidence that the areas of greatest government discretion, that to do with the border and beyond, are also areas with fewer political or structural checks.

It is important we recognize that these are biases, and a bias can often be corrected. Applying economic principles and insights helps adjust these biases toward better policy and outcomes.

If the consequences of central planning are domestically detrimental, we will likewise see a similar detrimental impact on international policy. Instead of central planning for others, we should embrace presumptions and policies which encourage freedom.

Reprinted from Medium.


James Devereaux

James Devereaux is an attorney.  All views are his own and not representative of employers or affiliations.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

This entry was posted in Cross Post. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to James Devereaux: Central Planning Doesn’t Work Internationally, Either

  1. Fat Tony

    Yeah whatever – no moslems

  2. Grumpy Racist Homophobe

    Another Sinclair Davidson – an open borders advocate, despite the deleterious effect the ALP/Greens policy has had on this country.

  3. Tim Neilson

    the overall effect of immigration is positive

    How was that calculated?

    Either by evidence under the current regime, or by theoretical modelling.

    Either way, and even assuming that it was done competently and objectively rather than by an open borders loon, it is insufficient evidence to justify open borders lunacy.

    If all the illegal immigrants to the first world are such valuable assets why are the countries they’re leaving such shitholes?

  4. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    the overall effect of immigration is positive

    People who only look at things in dollar outcomes are the stupidest and most worthless people on earth.

  5. Stimpson J. Cat

    Some believe we can discriminate based on merit;

    Think of it as a job interview for becoming a citizen if it is hard for you to understand James.
    Maybe Google for some diagrams online.

  6. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    Some believe we can discriminate based on merit;

    I give this an F.

  7. Devereaux has evidently not read the room.

  8. .

    the overall effect of immigration is positive

    Taking out the low-quality migrants is easy. To say it’s an immigration moratorium or open borders is just Gillardian hyperbowl.

  9. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Aside from incompetence, the reason central planning won’t work is because the central planners try to extract things for themselves. The Chinese Communist Party declares lofty goals, and local Commies then run any business into the ground. The Chinese economy is polluted because of the Communist Party, which can unaccountably hand out favours to anyone, and then lets them make any short-term profits- and any watchdogs are told to look the other way. Who could they complain to? Read up on any book on modern China, and you will see that Monopoly government is the worst form of government.

  10. Dr Fred Lenin

    Years ago the Soviets practised central planning for ages . A mate and his wife went there to ride the Transib railway ,I advised him to take two squash balls as I had read you couldn’t find a washplug there , when he returned he confirmed I had been correctly informed

    ,one of the squad]sh balls had been stolen ! I remember saying Central Planning in Moscow had not instructed factory 76854 in Chelyabinsk to make a few million , he even tried hardware stores to buy one but no plugs comrade ,nowhere in the Soviet Union .

  11. David Brewer

    The migration part tackles the easy issues, and ignores the hard ones.

    Among those left out:

    1. Milton Friedman’s argument that you can’t have a welfare state (which does exist in the USA) and also have unrestricted immigration, since the whole world will then be able to turn up for welfare.

    2. Security concerns. Unrestricted immigration was tried recently, for a short time, in Europe. Results included more terrorist attacks, more rapes, more crime in general, and massive diversion of police resources.

    3. All non-material costs. Damage to feelings of security, familiarity of surroundings, familiarity of behaviour, shared norms, social cohesion…

  12. Nerblnob

    A good economy will attract immigrants. That’s the correlation.

    It’s mind boggling to assume that therefore immigrants will cause a good economy.

    Maybe they will, maybe they won’t.

    Depends who they are.

    Can anyone quoting Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty explain why the poor tired hungry etc of the 19th and early 20th C were overwhelmingly from Europe? Mostly Western Europe at that.

    Weren’t there any poor tired hungry people in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia who wanted to come to America? Would the outcome have been the same if they’d come in proportionate numbers?

  13. Tel

    2. Security concerns. Unrestricted immigration was tried recently, for a short time, in Europe. Results included more terrorist attacks, more rapes, more crime in general, and massive diversion of police resources.

    Good point!

    They diverted the police resources to shutting up anyone who talked about the terrorist attacks, rapes, and crime in general. In the name of Freedom of course.

  14. 2dogs

    There seem to be a misattribution of cause and effect here.

    The fact that

    the overall effect of immigration is positive

    is the result of the fact we

    discriminate based on merit; those who are most qualified deserve to migrate

    .

  15. .

    It’s mind boggling to assume that therefore immigrants will cause a good economy.

    [You are right as you explain later but I am going to be a little pedantic here.]

    No it is not. The causation can be two way, increase specialisation in the economy at a greater rate than commodities are bidded up against fixed resources and migrants bring capital with them as well.

    It is misguided to assume all migrants are going to be of a high quality if you incentivise immigration with welfare and have pusillanimous politically correct policing.

    The other thing is, a good, well-“managed” economy will attract the best migrants.

  16. Tel

    The current immigration system is highly restricted. With an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants (with a few exceptions) allowed into the United States, and a per-country limit divided among that number, the demand for legal entry far exceeds the supply. This is the type of cap which encourages gaming and illegal activity. What I call the “black market signal” illustrates the point. With an estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, we see that the lack of supply for entry creates a strong incentive to come in without authorization, much like price caps or bans on other goods or services, a hard cap on immigration encourages illegal entrants. The black or illegal market signals a need to increase the supply.

    I guess the same “black or illegal market signals” would show a need for 7/11 stores to increase the supply of opening up their cash registers. We have demonstrable statistics that people are willing to rob the 7/11 store and take the cash, therefore clearly demand for access to cash registers must far exceed supply.

    The obvious conclusion would be, never lock your store, always leave your cash easily available. Every store owner wants to satisfy demand, right?

    This will lead to a huge boost in GDP. In fact, the store owner will benefit because the same people helping themselves to the cash register will be wealthy enough to become customers of the store and it all adds to profits. Thinking like an economist!

  17. Tel

    Taking out the low-quality migrants is easy. To say it’s an immigration moratorium or open borders is just Gillardian hyperbowl.

    That would be central planning… James Devereaux explains it to you:

    Some believe we can discriminate based on merit; those who are most qualified deserve to migrate. But this suffers from the same central planning fallacy.

    There you go, discrimination of any sort is unacceptable, even on merit. Can’t be done. Central planning fallacy.

    This strangely doesn’t apply to corporate employers who apparently do have some way of figuring out the exact marginal productivity of every employee which is how they know the correct wage. Hopefully they don’t offer promotions based on merit, because that would be discriminatory.

  18. .

    Abolishing welfare for non-citizens and making appropriate security measures is not dirigisme.

  19. Abolishing welfare for non-citizens and making appropriate security measures is not dirigisme.

    Could you expand – not sure of your point.

    On these topics, though: first, it would be very difficult in practice to abolish welfare for non-citizens. Think of the hue and cry about those poor people starving if they aren’t helped. Also the pressure to make them all citizens; after all, if we have unrestricted immigration, they will have entered legally, won’t they?

    Re appropriate security measures, again we have to consider likely real-world developments, not just desirable ideals. What has actually happened in Europe, and elsewhere, is expansion of police powers, restrictions on personal freedoms, hassles just getting in and out of planes, trains and buildings, formal and informal censorship of opinion, and other nasties. When have states ever managed to address problems of the scale we see with mass uncontrolled or poorly controlled immigration without hitting virtually the whole population?

  20. Nerblnob

    There are some good points.

    State selection who will come based on projections of need tends to breed a credentialist mediocracy.
    Such projections are always based on old numbers anyway.

    Anyway, here’s the list of who they reckoned Australia should give visas to this year:
    https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/work/work/skills-assessment-and-assessing-authorities/skilled-occupations-lists/combined-stsol-mltssl

    and
    https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-and-assessing-authorities/skilled-occupations-lists/caveats-on-occupations

    Looks reasonable although the mind boggles at the projected requirements for beef, pig, poultry and dairy farmers. Who the hell would want to do that in Australia these days? or for declining occupations such as “journalist”?

    We don’t even get the best from India and China, I’m pretty sure. Talking to Indians and Chinese, they want USA, UK, Germany, Canada roughly in that order.

    There’s a saying I’ve heard more than once in India: “In Australia, the racehorse can only run as fast as the donkey”

    Being known for this kind of economic and social environment does NOT attract the best immigrants.

    They don’t want a tepid nanny state.
    They much prefer a “sink or swim” society where the sky’s the limit.

  21. max

    Australia has been a secular country since federation.
    The Constitution of 1901 prohibits the Commonwealth government from interfering with the free exercise of any religion.

    Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

    Australians believe in Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism

    tell me how many christians died from muslim hand last 170 years ( since 1850 ) ?
    tell me how many christians died from communist/socialist hand in same period ?

  22. Egor

    “It is baffling how some who defend freedom and free markets domestically are willing to abandon those assumptions when considering the border and beyond.”

    Errr….not baffling at all. Unless you’re a Libert then it’s baffling, I suspect.
    Some regard national identity, cultural cohesion, community common cause and traditional values as far more important than the efficacious flow of money. An easy concept really.

  23. Next to nobody wants to migrate to Central/South America.
    Next to nobody wants to migrate to East/SE Asia.
    Next to nobody wants to migrate to Africa
    Almost every wannabe migrant wants to migrate to the West (and be selective about the Western Country as we’ve seen in Europe these past few years).

    So now lets do the math.
    Surveys have shown up to 1 BILLION people from poorer countries would like to migrate if they could.
    Most of these people come from countries with high birth rates.
    If a conservative birth rate of 3% is used, then we have a pool of people GROWING BY 30 MILLION every year.

    So now tell me, where will these people migrate to?
    At what rate per year?
    Is it possible to build infrastructure quick enough to accommodate these inflows?
    WHEN WILL IT ALL END?

    Anyone claiming free migration is possible, or hiding behind stupid arguments like “muh central planning” must be an office boy with soft hands who has no idea of the real World. A dickhead in other words.

    The incentive to pack up and move, or pull factor if you prefer, isn’t that the target country is rich or free. Western nations have been richer than most for a long time now, yet we didn’t have floods of people moving around. THEY WANTED TO but they knew they would be UNSUCCESSFUL.
    No, what’s changed is OUR ATTITUDES and our pussy laws. These “poor folk” maybe poor and mostly uneducated, but they are street wise, much more street wise than us soft westerners.

    When they hear us talk about “oh the poor people” and “what about the children, who will think of the children?” they know exactly what that means. It means they have a fair shot at getting in. (observe the people smugglers using children to get into the US).
    This IS THE PULL FACTOR. This is what’s causing mayhem in immigration.

    So, the proponents of Open Borders and free movement of people need to tackle these issues.

  24. Iampeter

    Some regard national identity, cultural cohesion, community common cause and traditional values as far more important than the efficacious flow of money. An easy concept really.

    Yes, these are called “fascists”.

    Those of us who are opposed to the left wing side of politics, support rights protecting government instead and such a government doesn’t concern itself with economics or culture or “national identity” or any other collectivist types of ideas.

  25. Egor

    “these are called “fascists”.
    So be it.
    There are a few of us vs the Liberts whose vote is a rounding error.

  26. .

    On these topics, though: first, it would be very difficult in practice to abolish welfare for non-citizens. Think of the hue and cry about those poor people starving if they aren’t helped. Also the pressure to make them all citizens; after all, if we have unrestricted immigration, they will have entered legally, won’t they?

    I don’t care how much the left whinge and the excuses they make. Furthermore, Trump and Reagan got elected. Remember they were “unelectable!”?

    Re appropriate security measures, again we have to consider likely real-world developments, not just desirable ideals. What has actually happened in Europe, and elsewhere, is expansion of police powers, restrictions on personal freedoms, hassles just getting in and out of planes, trains and buildings, formal and informal censorship of opinion, and other nasties. When have states ever managed to address problems of the scale we see with mass uncontrolled or poorly controlled immigration without hitting virtually the whole population?

    Not letting Man Monis for example into the country in the first instance has nothing to do with the post 9/11 surveillance state we live in now. In fact, it would prevent the perceived need for it in the first instance.

  27. Zatara

    “The United States currently has over 800 oversea bases.”

    Horseshit. It wasn’t true the first time it was spouted as propaganda by Ron Paul and it’s far less so now.

  28. .

    Zatara, how is it untrue? More sources other than Ron Paul say it, I doubt it is “propaganda”.

  29. Zatara

    Yeah Dot, it is untrue.

    “800 bases” has as much validity as the “97% consensus on global warming” so popular and accepted by those who don’t know bother inquiring into the methodology. Somebody with an axe to grind sat down and created the most dishonest and misleading definitions of “base” possible to come up with that number.

    As a quick example, last time I looked they count 2 US bases in Singapore. I defy the average individual to find them. One is a 1000ish sq foot leased office at Sembawang whose primary function is contracting fresh food supplies for USN ships which pass through. The other is a portion of a Singaporean Air Force barracks which houses transient US personnel catching up with their ships or rotating home. Bingo! Two bases.

    They claim there are 30 bases on Okinawa, hogwash. There are 4-5 main installations and then sub camps on them. Last time I checked the list they had included an electrical sub-station as a base, and a sewerage treatment plant as another.

    There are also a few poor USAF buggers who are stationed at “Wideawake Field” also known as RAF Ascension Island, which in WWII was an essential post on the southern route to ferry aircraft to the war in North Africa, Asia and Oz. Once a week they meet and refuel a USAF transport which passes through. Oh, and the US pays a bit into the runway maintenance kitty of the RAF there. Base!

    Or how about counting the Marine Security Guard detachments at each US embassy as bases? That’ll run your number right up. Speaking of embassies, as I recall US Defense Attache offices were also included.

    The RAAF has a detachment of pilots and ground personnel at Eglin AFB, Florida learning to fly and maintain the F-35. Is Eglin an “Australian Base”? Because according to Ron Paul’s definition it is.

    Those are but a few examples of why that “800 bases” is a dishonest and misleading figure. It’s not often objected to because it just isn’t worth the time to correct them.

  30. .

    It is not “Ron Paul’s” figure either. That is misleading well.

    I’m not sure the list of bases in Okinawa is misleading. The five main installations are really quite large. They can run a full wing of aircraft plus support squadrons, whereas a typical RAAF base rarely has more than 1 or two squadrons. Some of the closed down bases in the UK were joint bases on account of being so large and nearby.

    Anyway, an empty base that remains operational or with a small force to keep things ticking over is still legitimately a base, we have them up north (e.g., Scherger). If a deployment turns permanent (e.g., Butterworth), then it is fair to call it a base.

    Say you cut it down to 100 (from what you are suggesting about USFJ). It is still rather outrageous really that the US taxpayer pays for the defence of places like Germany that isn’t pulling its own weight.

    100 overseas bases when you purport not to engage in nation and empire building is absurd.

    Removing a lot of these bases would not hamper US ability to warfight or patrol sea lanes. It would stop countries like Germany bludging and grandstanding whilst some sap from Indiana pays the bills.

  31. Tel

    There are a few of us vs the Liberts whose vote is a rounding error.

    Roughly 10% in the USA, enough to swing an election but not win one outright.

  32. .

    community common cause

    Jesus. What is this doublespeak gobbledygook?

  33. jupes

    The other thing is, a good, well-“managed” economy will attract the best migrants.

    Qataris?

  34. .

    You’re obsessed with Qataris, jupes.

    It is a little weird, but it’s your passion.

  35. jupes

    You’re obsessed with Qataris, jupes.

    I just think they’d make really you-beaut bonzer Aussies. Them and the Free Syrian Army terrorists members.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  36. Tel

    Australia has been a secular country since federation.
    The Constitution of 1901 prohibits the Commonwealth government from interfering with the free exercise of any religion.

    Let me just mention another country that has secular government, defined but Constitution … Turkey.

    Something to think about, huh?

  37. .

    jupes is still stuck in 2014, the elements of the FSA friendly to the West formed the SDF, who have been attacked by Erdogan who is implementing an Islamic State in what was once a secular democracy (as Tel notes).

    Given that about 600 Qataris have ever come to Australia since Federation…this is like being afraid of Kiribati.

  38. max

    Polytheism the belief in or worship of more than one god.

    Political pluralism is a manifestation of polytheism: multiple ethics, multiple gods.

    The lack of absolutes of right and wrong is the bane of politically pluralistic.

    The idea that everyone has the right to worship as he or she chooses has been transformed to mean that each person’s choice of religion is true. “I have the right to believe as I wish” becomes “My belief is as true as yours.” The fact that I believe something makes it true.

    Religious Diversity (Pluralism) is a set of world views that stands on the premise that one religion is not the sole exclusive source of values, truths, and supreme deity. It therefore must recognize that at least “some” truth must exist in other belief systems. This is one example of “they can’t all be right.”

    Religious Diversity (Pluralism) is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society.

    Religious Diversity (Pluralism) generally refers to the belief in two or more religious world views as being equally valid or acceptable.

    Religious Diversity (Pluralism) definition has the basis in operating under the principles of acceptance and diversity. It is promoted as a system for the “common good” of all.

    Political pluralism seems on the surface to be an effective form of running and governing a country: In reality, it depends on whose viewpoint you are looking at. Since there are no longer any societal norms, everybody is free to set up their own norms for running their life and their social group.

    With political pluralism the value system is no longer defined, and there are no absolutes of right and wrong. Without the absolutes of right and wrong, the politically pluralistic society will start to degrade and will soon find itself no longer in existence.

    only important border to protect in peace time is access to Citizenship, which is access to voting and political power.

    should communist,socialist,fascist,atheist,muslim,hindu,buddhist. government employees, people who do not pay taxes have right to Citizenship, right to vote?

  39. Clam Chowdah

    The other thing is, a good, well-“managed” economy will attract the best migrants.

    Can you expand on that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.