"What's up with the social system of capitalism that it regards people as a problem?!"

More intellectual confusion, or dishonesty, from the socialists trying to squirm out of the inevitable consequences of their own belief system.

What's up with "capitalism" as you have defined it, is that you have defined it to include government overriding market transactions and setting up huge bureaucratic empires of forced redistributions, and state ownership or control of any service you would care to mention: roads, rail, electricity, water, education, medicine, charity etc. etc.

*That* is why people object to immigration - because they are afraid that "our" infrastructure will not be able to cope. But no-one thinks we won't have enough mobile phones, or pizzas, or motor bikes, or steaks, or whitegoods, or friends, or conversations - privately provided goods - because they are "too many people". They entertain this anxiety only in relation to resources that are controlled or provided by government, such as hospitals, roads and social security so-called. This is not because of capitalism you fool, but precisely because government lacks the incentive and the ability to calculate what is the economical way of doing anything: it's because of socialism, however re-named by its faithful adherents.

*Obviously* if you define private ownership of the means of production to include anything and everything that violates and distorts it, you will have plenty to criticise in the resulting mess, but the fault will lie not with capitalism but your own confusion that defines capitalism to include its conceptual opposite.

Is this article "tongue in cheek"or of serious intent?

Hi Byork...you ask:

What's up with the social system of capitalism that it regards people as a problem?!

welll........ your question requires an essay to respond to, but I'll spare you.

It's never 'people' who are the problem...it's what they believe and 'do' that is.

Incompatible creeds or culture are a serious problem.

If your creed is based on the ideas of Adolph... *problem*

If your personal creed is to destroy Western civilization by moral subversion...*problem*

Google this *Triple-Exthics*

go to the 'original' source. The key quote is in some of the more radical 'white' web sites for sure..but it comes from an interesting source.

Under the heading 'Sexual Revolutionaries'.. err would 'you' invite one of those 'stars' into Australia ?

Oh...one more.. "beliefs" are the problem..

Would you invite Noel Ignatiev into Australia ? He's the same 'race' as the author of that earlier one. (Triple)

http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html
http://racetraitor.org/

People are not the problem.. "People+ certain Ideas" are the problem.

The call for an opening of Australia's "borders" is correct. There is no question that Australia's wealth can accommodate open immigration.
The idea usually creates hysteria, but for different reasons.
The so-called national identity has been constructed to create imaginary differences between peoples, and this leads to soft (threat to our standard of living) and hard racism (culturally inferior foreigners). Employers don't want to contribute to the costs of education, training & social services, but want skilled workers, so they push for visas that are discriminatory. We can easily subsidize immigration increases, and improve public health facilities, by abolishing the wasteful subsidies to big business and taxing the rich.

David's is a logical argument based on the premise that if people who have more by virtue of their place of birth are prepared to accept a pay cut then this would be to the overall benefit of people who have less because of their place of birth. Although the logic cannot be faulted the premise is currently not accepted by most Australians and is unlikely to be for some time.

Hard to say whether David's piece is a worthwhile thought experiment, a provocation, utopian politics or a plea for a better society.

Well said Peter Hume.

But the poor thoughtless brainwashed fools will still tell you our capitalism is the cause of our problems.

Open borders are a silly idea if we don't try to regulate the migrants by skills. Too many unskilled migrants would see a huge reduction in the standard of living, not of people like me or McMullan, or any of those over educated and usually public funded individuals, who continuely and inanely condescendingly address their comments to the poor buggars who are struggling in under-employment, extreme basic low wages or benefits (Pensions). It is they of course they who will suffer lower wages, longer hours, substandard or overcrowded accommodation, congested health systems, overcrowded transport and loss of amenities resulting from an open borders policy.

Yeah sure the clever government funded, big business reliant, or self employed university educated morons who claim open borders will not lesson the standard of living are only thinking of their own standard of living.

Oh and I am a capitalist employer.