cyberquiet

I think the problem is their susceptibility. They believe to the first one who shows interest in their issues. If insitutions doesn't play this role, groups interested in using them for their advantage will readily show up.

http://www.zmag.org/books/pareconv/parefinal.htm Ever heard about it? What do you think? I'm still reading the book, and I find the idea a lot interesting. I think we really need an alternative to capitalism, so I very much appreciate those who work to find a viable alternative.

I don't want to get off topic' date=' we may open another thread for discussing this. The only thing I will say is that no one has givean a [b']proof[/b] that something better than capitalism cannot exist, do you have one? Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge to answer this question. Possibly they have the resources, but they don't have the right to use them or they don't have the technologies to extract them.

In part it is' date=' but it's primarily motivated by the desire of economic and social equity. My point is that politicians and the average citizen, but especially the most affluent ones, hardly make some economic sacrifice in the name of compassion... Indeed there is not a single factor, but I think resources are the essential basis for wealth. No civilization who lived in a desert may have produced the same wealth at the same pace, however culturally or technlogically advanced. From this I logically deduce that if you born in a place with more resources than me, you are luckier than me. What do you mean? Are you arguing that a more just economic system cannot exist? It may work, but it won't be easy to make the employers behave correctly... They will most probably respond by "emigrating" to another country where workforce is less costly (I like to insist on this, damned Michael Moore )

Don't you think if we only wait for "compassion" to take out developing countries from their misery, we may wait forever? Why should a US citizen have so much rights over a cospicuos share of the global wealth simply because she is born from a legally recognized US family? Recall this: This is an interesting idea. So once they have accumulated some money they can return to their home country and start developing there. But if there are political or other kind of constraints, this may suppresss any attempt of development in their home country. Such constraints are not uncommon: think about wars, dictatorship, corruption, environmental destruction... As I said earlier, employers strongly benefit from illegal immigrants, but regular employees suffer economically from this. But I'm still waiting for a strong political action aimed to control those employers... And even if such action would be taken, I think companies will instantly move their factories outside the US, increasing unemployement.

Cool, I don't know if it was intentional but this fits perfectly even if we substitute the concept of home with the concept of a state/region. Anyway, this is correct, bringing tolerance at the extreme may cause serious economical and social problems, and no one will benefit from them. But I don't think we're even close to this point Jim, there is plenty of room in our home. We just need to arrange them more intelligently. I find a bit difficult to follow this argument. For example, on what basis the english who colonized the States and their descendence could claim to "own" the country? This leaves a open problem: how will you block the undesired immigrants? How can we expect poor people who can merely gain elementary education to know the correct procedure needed to enter the country? As I said before, without intervention on the "source" countries, immigration will not stop.

I would go further and say they have the right to do so. It may seem foolish, but I think it's not more than declaring we have the right to live wastefully and in all the luxury we can afford. This is perfectly right, but a lot of people still insist in saying they don't like and don't want to work. In reality I've never seen people working harder than the immigrants who built an house behind mine last summer... I don't live in a supersize American home, but at least 2 families could live confortably in my home. My parents will hardly accept something like that, anyway... I hope it was intentional, but a lot of posters seem to ignore the huge human aspect of this issue....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't US corporations massively moving their factories to Mexico so they can pay employess 60 cents per hour? If it's so, why shouldn't a Mexican citizen ask himself: <<why should I work for these US corporations doing the same things (or worse) US citizen were doing one year ago and be paid a tenth?>> If it's not so, I'm sure they've serious problems making a living in their country, otherwise they wouldn't do such a desperate thing... As Lester Brown says: I think the only solution is to improve living standards in their home countries, until this is done, I find morally unjustifiable to enforce country borders or to expel them. Obviously no government will intentionally do so, since US enterprises appreciate this low-cost and low-risk workforce, and medias have new scaring "enemies" useful to keep citizen frightened. In Italy it is pretty going in the same way...

Hi, this is my first post on this forum. I voted "other". I think public transportation and bicycle are the only viable solution if we want to prevent a host of problems in the future. But until the "smart growth" philosophy will be adoped, hybrids should not be understimated as a way to reduce oil consumption. Amory Lovins even claims hybrids may be made much more efficient by using better materials and aerodynamics.