2. It does not apply to existing H1B visas. Only new ones.
So it's actually a lot more reasonable than initially discussed here yesterday. I think it's a fair change.
SonOfKyuss•4mo ago
On the whole I agree, but there are 2 concerning details:
1. The possibility of allowing exceptions at the discretion of the administration is ripe for corruption.
2. The 24 hour notice for visa holders out of the country added unnecessary chaos to companies with employees traveling for business or personal reasons
aurareturn•4mo ago
1. I agree. This administration is concentrating power and whoever kisses ass the most gets more exceptions. This destabilizes business environment and eventually lead to a few companies/people owning everything. See 2nd/3rd world country economics where a few giant conglomerates own everything.
2. Yes, it sucks but the macro picture is that it isn't nearly as bad as everyone thought yesterday.
casenmgreen•4mo ago
I may be wrong, but it seems to me the basic rule is that everything must be voluntary and well-informed, except in self-defence.
It seems to me if I am an individual or business, with my own money, want to hire someone, it is wholly a private matter.
These are my possessions and I am choosing to do as I see fit, and I am not forcing others to do something, to tricking them into doing something.
It seems to me then the very existence of constraints upon whom can be employed is wrong from first principles.
If we argue in this case it is acceptable, then we must in fact be arguing in general there are cases where others or the State can impose itself, by force or by trickery, upon people, without the justification of self-defence (perhaps the State thinks that all American shipping must be staffed only by American sailors, or that there is a need for a national raisin reserve, or that we need reciprocal tariffs on every other country we trade with).
Indeed, to argue for this means that we ourselves are saying it is fine for others to impose themselves on ourselves by force or by trickery, which I think no one would actually agree with, since this includes being robbed.
palata•4mo ago
> is wrong from first principles.
I feel like I fundamentally disagree with your first principles.
Not that I agree with the free in question here. I just think that regulations set the framework into which capitalism is meant to optimise. Regulations reflect what kind of society we want to live in.
Not all the regulations are perfect, or even good. That's why they need to evolve. But no regulation "other than self-defence" sounds like a very, very bad idea.
casenmgreen•4mo ago
Well, "self-defence" means you can't force others, and you can't trick them.
If either are happening, then freedom has gone - you're being coerced, or you've been deceived.
If we choose to impose ourselves on others - to coerce them, or deceive them - on a basis other than self-defence, what basis would that be?
The problem I see in this is that if we go beyond self-defence, we're into the realm of "I think this is good, so I will now force you to do it", and the problems with that are self-evident, as we see today.
palata•4mo ago
I am not sure exactly what you are saying. If you are saying that we need regulations so that we can live with each other peacefully, I agree. But you seem to be against regulations.
So are you saying that everything should be allowed, and people just have to defend themselves? I don't get it.
casenmgreen•4mo ago
No - I've said nothing about how this idea of a basic rule should be done; so I've made no observations about regulations.
What I would observe regarding regulations is that there must be an entity with the power to enforce regulations, which is to say, to coerce or deceive.
If we imagine such an entity, and we imagine it acts only in defence of itself or others, then we could it seems to me be comfortable.
If we imagine such an entity, and we imagine it acts for reasons other than defence of itself or others, then it seems to me we run into problems when Governments go bad, as with the current Trump administration.
aurareturn•4mo ago
1. It's not an annual fee. It's a one-time fee.
2. It does not apply to existing H1B visas. Only new ones.
So it's actually a lot more reasonable than initially discussed here yesterday. I think it's a fair change.
SonOfKyuss•4mo ago
1. The possibility of allowing exceptions at the discretion of the administration is ripe for corruption.
2. The 24 hour notice for visa holders out of the country added unnecessary chaos to companies with employees traveling for business or personal reasons
aurareturn•4mo ago
2. Yes, it sucks but the macro picture is that it isn't nearly as bad as everyone thought yesterday.
casenmgreen•4mo ago
It seems to me if I am an individual or business, with my own money, want to hire someone, it is wholly a private matter.
These are my possessions and I am choosing to do as I see fit, and I am not forcing others to do something, to tricking them into doing something.
It seems to me then the very existence of constraints upon whom can be employed is wrong from first principles.
If we argue in this case it is acceptable, then we must in fact be arguing in general there are cases where others or the State can impose itself, by force or by trickery, upon people, without the justification of self-defence (perhaps the State thinks that all American shipping must be staffed only by American sailors, or that there is a need for a national raisin reserve, or that we need reciprocal tariffs on every other country we trade with).
Indeed, to argue for this means that we ourselves are saying it is fine for others to impose themselves on ourselves by force or by trickery, which I think no one would actually agree with, since this includes being robbed.
palata•4mo ago
I feel like I fundamentally disagree with your first principles.
Not that I agree with the free in question here. I just think that regulations set the framework into which capitalism is meant to optimise. Regulations reflect what kind of society we want to live in.
Not all the regulations are perfect, or even good. That's why they need to evolve. But no regulation "other than self-defence" sounds like a very, very bad idea.
casenmgreen•4mo ago
If either are happening, then freedom has gone - you're being coerced, or you've been deceived.
If we choose to impose ourselves on others - to coerce them, or deceive them - on a basis other than self-defence, what basis would that be?
The problem I see in this is that if we go beyond self-defence, we're into the realm of "I think this is good, so I will now force you to do it", and the problems with that are self-evident, as we see today.
palata•4mo ago
So are you saying that everything should be allowed, and people just have to defend themselves? I don't get it.
casenmgreen•4mo ago
What I would observe regarding regulations is that there must be an entity with the power to enforce regulations, which is to say, to coerce or deceive.
If we imagine such an entity, and we imagine it acts only in defence of itself or others, then we could it seems to me be comfortable.
If we imagine such an entity, and we imagine it acts for reasons other than defence of itself or others, then it seems to me we run into problems when Governments go bad, as with the current Trump administration.