Originally Posted by
j2k4
See below, which, at a minimum, keeps a lid on things.
See also humanitarian aid and the lion's (or hog's, if you prefer) share of the cost of the most organized anti-U.S. contingent on
earth, the United Nations.
I would consider successfully functional to be based on how well your own country's (to name a few) welfare, healthcare, education, crime, laws and economy look.
How much one country spends on 'World Influence' is not what I would consider part of a successful function necessarily.
But I digress. To answer your other question, which was less aside and more front-side to the point we're discussing.
Originally Posted by
j2k4
As an aside, are you guys tripping over yourselves to give immigrants driver's licenses and a vote in your affairs?
We are all immigrants and we are all natives. I think, as a race, the English are generally quite good at embracing other cultures and adapting our own. We're a multi-national, wide-ranging nation of many good and bad people from many places.
Whether they are an immigrant or not shouldn't be the point. This is capitalism. A competitive market. If a Latvian Cobbler is better at the job than our local one, give it to him. And we get better cobbles.
If a German chimney sweep is faster, give him the job and fire the current one.
In this competitive market, the ideals of our glorious capitalism demand an equal opportunity for everyone to compete. That's why we love it so. Blocking foreigners from competing is unsportsmanlike at best, and xenophobic at worst.
I am open to all borders being opened everywhere and all people free to settle where they are happiest, and to compete equally with those around them.
Bookmarks