Are people smugglers doing good? (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

.


Why is making money evil? Why do you hate capitalism? The providers only charge what people are happy to pay.

It's a premium service, it will never be appropriate or sustainable to supply such services on a budget platform.

It's not merely trade it's inverted extortion.

 

[Mu5hi]

People smugglers are doing no good. But they also simultanouesly do good as well. This is a case of 'lesser of two evils', and im leaning towards the side that people smugglers are doing the best they can, given their circumstances.

-Yes it is true that people smugglers are making money from the suffering of people. However, you need to separate the motive from the action.
-They are offering a service to people in need. The majority of boat people enter an agreement to be smuggled out of their country knowing the risks involved (including piracy on the high seas, the large risk of being stranded or drowned etc). Smugglers are not forcing their passengers to be smuggled, hence cannot be held responsible for whatever bad shit happens to them.
-In fact, people smugglers are doing lots of good, because they are saving lives and providing an opportunity for a better life in other countries.
-Yes, it is true that in doing the deed, people smugglers are doing something bad (e.g exposing people to piracy, being drowned as per before). However, this risk is far preferable to the risks involved in staying in the country. Refugees try to escape their country knowing the risks involved. They are merely replacing a larger risk with a smaller one.

-I personally believe the fact that 'refugees steal our jobs' is whining. People ought to roll with the increasing competition. You cannot blame refugees for being harder working and more industrious than others in their new coutnry, and then expect them to leave so you can maintain your own laziness. In fact, the influx of people serves to stimulate the economy, by increasing the population (and hence demand for products) and increasing competition (raising the employment standard).

Being the son of a generation of boat people, I see little reason why western countries should not accept refugees, nor do I believe people smugglers are doing as much wrong as people think they do. Especially for countries like Australia, we have an obligation to accept the refugees created by the result of our own aggression.

Im confused are you a chick of guy?

Also people smugglers arent doing any good. There just some greedy bastards locking to trip soem poor people off promising a better life, far from the truth.

 

[Lentern]

Call it extortion, exploitation, whatever you want. Branding it will a pejorative term does not change the situation.

The refugees have judged that on balance, they are better of paying these people huge sums of money than risking death or torture in their homeland.

Graney has been way too generous to your argument. It is almost a perfectly competitive market. Anyone can become a people smuggler.

It's totally unfair to say they should charge refugees just marginally above the cost of physically providing the service. You ignore the massive costs people smugglers face in terms of their risk of imprisonment and death. Of course they deserve to be compensated for this.

You did not just say they should be compensated for breaking the law did you?

 

[Graney]

It's not merely trade it's inverted extortion.

It's not extortion or exploitation at all. The refugees in question (at least in the situations I'm supporting) are not being threatened or coerced by the people smugglers. They make an absolutely free choice.

The refugees are threatened by groups entirely seperate and removed from the people smugglers. If they were threatened, and then made to pay their persecutors to ensure their escape and freedom, that would be extortion.

I'm not sure I understand what 'inverted extortion' would entail? Vulnerable people taking money by force, from powerful people? Robin hood?

It's no different to a doctor charging high fees to a victim of crime, pharmaceutical companies selling drugs for high profits etc, and the numerous other examples I gave previously of people who are considered to have the legitimate right to profit from need and suffering.

 

[Lentern]

It's not extortion or exploitation at all. The refugees in question (at least in the situations I'm supporting) are not being threatened or coerced by the people smugglers. They make an absolutely free choice.

The refugees are threatened by groups entirely seperate and removed from the people smugglers. If they were threatened, and then made to pay their persecutors to ensure their escape and freedom, that would be extortion.

I'm not sure I understand what 'inverted extortion' would entail? Vulnerable people taking money by force, from powerful people? Robin hood?

It's no different to a doctor charging high fees to a victim of crime, pharmaceutical companies selling drugs for high profits etc, and the numerous other examples I gave previously of people who are considered to have the legitimate right to profit from need and suffering.

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies billing luckless clients back to the stone age is hardly comendable practice. They aren't directly creating the circumstances but they are willing they're preservation and using them scare asylum seekers into accepting their terms. Event he ideal capitalist world doesn't mean you take as much as you can get and screw the rest which is what this is. They are entitled to charge a price, but they are not "good people" if they charge shameless prices for poorly executed services.

 

[Hagaren]

My mothers family was poor & lived overseas.

They immigrated to Australia legally for the opportunity, if they did others can to.

People smugglers are fuckwits they pay no tax on their earnings, they bring disease into our country & what they do is illegal.

 

[Lentern]

You haven't dealt with my point that the high price compensates them for a high risk of death and legal sanctions.

You're just going around in circles.

The idea of them being morally above the law is a fair one, perhaps. But the death element, hardly. Most smugglers have the means to make the trip safer but don't want it to cut into their profits so they put their own life and those who placed their trust in them in danger.

 

[Lentern]

Do you realize how expensive it is to charter a boat thousands of kilometers across the high seas. Good quality vessels cost millions of dollars, and highly experienced crews cost thousands per week.

But even ignoring this, the high chance of having your boat shot down, or of being locked up or worse, surely justifies a premium for this risk.

You are talking about how much now and there is no magical line in the sand. I think they try and get too much out of it, how much would you say is a reasonable profit? Give me percentages, one that is too high one that is fair.

 

[boris]

Do you realize how expensive it is to charter a boat thousands of kilometers across the high seas. Good quality vessels cost millions of dollars, and highly experienced crews cost thousands per week.

But even ignoring this, the high chance of having your boat shot down, or of being locked up or worse, surely justifies a premium for this risk.

wait wait wait

money can be exchanged for goods and services?

YouTube - I'm On A Boat (ft. T-Pain) - Album Version

 

[Graney]

The only reason people smuggling costs too much (if indeed it does cost too much, I'm not familiar with the balance sheets of people smugglers), is because the government makes it too hard for people smugglers to operate, and acts anti-competitively.

If that's your only objection, you should endorse the decriminalisation of people smuggling to open up the industry to competition, lowering prices. If it were fully legalised, the government could report and monitor safety records, leading to competition among providers to deliver the safest service.

 

[Iron]

It's hardly 'fair' to permit them to break 'immoral' laws. Illegal Refugees bring into dramatic tension two very great and powerful principles: the rule of law and inherent human rights.

The reason we have a rule of law is for the protection of all people in our society. You simply cant run a society if people decide themselves which laws to obey and disobey; you must accept all law in its totality or face consequences for corrupting our civilization. If you disagree with this law, there is a correct process to amend it and this was followed in November 2007. We now have fresh and humane laws on the subject that get the balance right
Either youre on board with the system, or we throw you over doods

 

[Iron]

And I will visit you in prison until I break your soul apart with a crow-bar and stuff it with Jesus

 

[Iron]

wtf, I watched that scene maybe 20mins ago
sinful techniques


/waddles away, twirling cane

 

[Iron]

No. Id fight them politically, non-violently in a civilized fashion. We'd try em and hang em once we win

 

[SnowFox]

The idea of them being morally above the law is a fair one, perhaps. But the death element, hardly. Most smugglers have the means to make the trip safer but don't want it to cut into their profits so they put their own life and those who placed their trust in them in danger.

Your crapping on right?

At the first sign of danger, smugglers would dump their "cargo" and pretend to fish.

 

[Iron]

Is there genocide in North Korea? I'm guessing that you yourself would flee illegally to another country, rather than fight, right?

 

[Iron]

I will not. It's more complex than choosing one principle over another: there must be balance. Making it difficult for people to come here without invitation doesnt approach the kind of government action that warrants attempts to subvert its authority. This is especially so considering our generous intake of valid refugees.

Bad things are always going to be happening to people around the world. The point is that you must bring order to this madness through proper process, even though this will result in some tragic cases.
Greater good
Greater good

 

[Iron]

That's the spirit!
Controlling evil is hard, so why bother!? What is "evil" btw?? How can you even begin to balance competing interests? Pointless to try! There is no truth! Everything is too hard!
/slumps back into chair

Rome is burning!

 

[Iron]

There's this place called the United States of America, see, and they got this whole power thing sorted, see. I dont argue that whoever is in power should define good and evil, but I do argue that there are moral absolutes that all men know to be true.
Refer to your Charlie Chap text and try not to 'miss the point'

 

[Iron]

Love thy neighbour is the biggy We know it is true because we're a social creature born of two parents and usually raised with brothers and sisters etc. We know that not only our survival, but also our quality of life and vitality of our civilization depends on how much we value and care for eachother - not just ourselves. This is true across all good and enduring cultures and is maintained by those who carry and communicate faith in God - something greater than men and machines