So to remain unconvinced doesn't make sense here. Though I guess I can just say I'm unconvinced of government regulations because why not? Same line of reasoning that you're using here.

You can't be "not convinced" that things would be better - "we" have a free market and that market produced sunscreen in the first place, without which we would have worse health outcomes. There's nothing to imagine - it happened. Things are better for us.

But I think the challenge here is that we can have great places if we do the following:

1. Focus on transportation and ways of living that focus on walking or taking a tram.

2. Create and support medium-density, mixed-use neighborhoods

3. Require good, sound architectural principles. When you think of Paris and those narrow streets or the apartment complexes in the best neighborhoods, we need those. None of this modernist bullshit or 5-over-1s made with recycled concrete. Use bricks, stone, and more. Incorporate design elements requiring skilled craftsmen, and pay for it.

Those 3 alone should get you most of the way there.

My final comment would be, when you're thinking about spending $5,000 - $10,000 or whatever on a big international trip to go look at some nice stuff in some other country, consider spending that money instead on your own home, or garden, or donate to organizations that maintain those things for you. It also doesn't have to be all or none, you can still travel, and still invest locally. Make where you live the kind of place you would have wanted to travel to. Gardens in Great Britain, for example, can happen where you live too you just need to spend the money and build and maintain those things... like they do.

The transit and transportation stuff is much more difficult to fix. Most Americans want a Jeep and suburban house and to wait in line and beep their horn at the Costco gas station and that's a tough hill to climb, but the 3 items I highlighted above are guaranteed to increase quality of life and lower costs long-term.

Well not filling out the paperwork means you'd be in the country without authorization which you know just subjects you to being deported or fined or to face other penalties depending on the laws and regulations of that country. So to your point, nothing really "bad" per-se happens by not following it. You just might be deported or fined and then you have to just accept that reality.

> Note that I'm not defending unlawful immigrants; but once you spend a large amount of life in a country and you did nothing bad I don't see any issue with said country allowing you to stay.

Sure, but conversely if that country decides you're not allowed to stay there's nothing wrong with that. Just being in a country for a long time doesn't retroactively grant you citizenship or anything. Though some countries may from time to time decide that it does, which I find unfortunate especially for those who are pursuing the proper methods. We shouldn't encourage breaking of rules or laws in our societies as a default.

> Of course having a safe legal path to residency

Well in the US at least we do have a safe and legal path to residency. Most other countries around the world are far, far more strict on these requirements.

If you don't have evidence I think it's mature of you to admit that and applaud you in doing so. We all like to just talk and don't have to always provide evidence for every citation or what not and it's fair to just say hey I'm just making this up and it requires further discussion.

I don't believe that this is a fact. How are you demonstrating that this is a fact?

When you talk about things like reparations or "land back" you're already cargo-culting in concepts and ideas that themselves need to be fleshed out in order to make a subsequent claim that a specific economic system is unethical. Someone can just argue all economic systems are unethical, how are you going to defend against that? And can you pay reparations for example without going back in all of human history and finding all cases of injustices and then tallying it up? Why pick an arbitrary point in time? Better yet, why not start in countries where slavery still exists instead of focusing on the west which led the world in abolishing slavery and created concepts such as universal human rights.

Even with respect to "eliminating food scarcity" - eliminate in what sense? All olive groves and grapevines and rice farms have to be destroyed and rebuilt to only build certain foods?

Dabbling in communism or other inhumane and authoritarian governmental systems is extremely dangerous and in the same vein of extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence, suggesting as you did creating an authoritarian government to create a utopia is precisely the same project of suffering and death that mass murderers throughout history have undertaken to abject failure, and thus, you need some incredible amount of evidence and theory to be able to even fairly suggest going down this path.

This "simple" fact needs quite a bit of additional context and work. Making grandiose ethical claims like this can be countered with other grandiose claims such as the fact that there is no ethical existence under communism or socialism.

Nah I have an issue with it too, conceptually. You're basically rewarding bad actors for breaking rules and laws which is unfair to those who were and are trying to immigrate legally. At a minimum.

Immigration isn't a moral good, it's just a switch we can flip on or off. Too few people? A given society can have more permissive rules. Too many people? Have more restrictive rules. Being an immigrant is just a random status one has by virtue of moving to another country - it's just paperwork.

Why can't the H1B visa holder also just be deported and drive for Uber in their home country full-time until the market recovers?

> Meanwhile a lot of illegal immigrants are happily driving for Uber and plenty more will be if they can do it legally.

As a capitalist I'm all in favor of driving wages for workers to as close to 0 as possible. If Uber is $1 for me instead of $15 that's great. I don't think our unions or blue-collar workforce are in favor of that though.

The reason I wrote this comment is because the OP itself decided it was warranted with this cynical comment to suggest Americans don't work hard because oh if they get fired well they just find another job but the H1B visa holder gets gasp deported. But this itself diminishes the stresses and experience of those who don't find that other job, or don't find that replacement tech job, or any other devastating affects that someone experiences from job loss. Yea you might have a few months of COBRA benefits, but then what? You might not even have any savings because of some emergency that occurred. What's worse, being deported after a couple of months or becoming homeless in America? What if you're deported to Australia or Japan? Why are you or others assuming a happy ending for someone laid off in America but assuming the worst case scenario for an H1B visa holder and then comparing the two in that way?

Being fired means you lose healthcare and much needed benefits and of course a paycheck and all of that stuff, right? If you're going to take this wildly cynical approach you should at least do a more proper comparison....

Don't you find it interesting? I would think you would support it, or do you not?

Strategically the government of Canada should do as the UK has done and permit the referendum precisely because it's very likely to fail and to not permit it gives secessionists ammo for further action and debate.