A more humane and profitable solutions to handle refugees

[grbb]

This happened in my town

So some immigrants want to kill 40 kids out of protests.
Okay, these immigrants are a bit problematic.
If we let them die, that sucks. That's cruel.
If we let them in, they run our lives.
What about if some people make those refugees area a better place. Rather than letting Syrian refugees go to Europe and turn Europe into another Syria, why not turn Syria into more like Europe?
Rather than letting Venezuela's refugee go to the US, why not turn Venezuela into more like the US?
Say I live in a big house. Say my neighbor is poor and starving. Do I invite him to live with me in my home?
It's just far more practical to say invest in my neighbor's house, turn it into a shop, and hire that neighbor.
If you invite people to your country, they "kind of own" your country, that is true especially if they're poor.
So what's the solution?
Well.... Colonization? No. I don't mean repeating the old blood bath where more advanced countries mass murder fewer advance countries. That's cruel.
I am thinking of something more consensual and mutually beneficial — capitalistic, and hence benign, colonization.
Those refugees have homes that they can't defend. They have bad governments.
On the other hand, there are many rich companies and countries with better government, money, and better military power.
So why not make a deal. Rich, powerful countries, like Israel, or even private investors, can help defend refugees home. Smart investors can also govern better than their current government.
So make an offer. Say a wealthy investor govern and protect their regions. In return, the wealthy investors own say 30% of the land of those regions. Now, if the areas prosper, we just sell that to other investors.
It's a win-win.
Similar deals have been done in the US. US government, give railroad companies land around the railroad they build. When the regions prosper, the land price increase and the land belong to the railroad companies.
It's something like that. So investors can govern a state, and make a profit out of the increased land price. Those investors can hire mercenaries to drive ISIS or whatever causes problems in those land.
Those who govern well will be rich and can buy more and more regions — sort of like those who run a successful business like Google can acquire more and more startups.
I think any businessmen in capitalistic countries, like Bill Gates, can govern 100 times better than Mugabe.

 

[grbb]

Basically, why not turn Syria into another Qatar, or Hong Kong, or Singapore? That's what I am saying. After that, split the profit.

Qatar used to be a British Protectorate.

Many people hate colonialism. However, in some rare cases, colonialism is win-win.

Qatar, being a British protectorate is now very rich. If it were not for the british, Qatar might have been conquered by another Arab kingdom.

Or what about Hong Kong? Yes. China is now catching up to Hong Kong's prosperity. However, the British do have a role.

I am not saying colonialism is good. Colonialism is like business deals. Some are fraudulent; some are coercive, many are exploitative. However, when those who are dishonest and coercive is prohibited by laws, most business deals are pretty nice.

The same way with colonialism. Many blood and genocide happen due to it. I am not saying it's right. However, perhaps the issue is not in colonialism itself but what happens when it's not regulated relatively.

Colonialism is like prostitution. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. What's wrong is force, fraud, and unfairness. Then people overreact say it's wrong missing the problem.

Properly regulated by prohibiting fraud and coercion, colonialism, like prostitution, can be very good.

How should colonialism be "regulated"? I don't know. It can be like libertarianism.

Basically consent is reasonable, mutually beneficial is good, and fraud and coercion and war is terrible. Like in real life, what counts as consensual is often grey. But we can make things better than the way it currently is.
It's probably greyer than individual based consent. For example, if Mugabe oppresses the people is launching a war to free people from Mugabe is "consensual"? Well, the majority of the people consent but Mugabe is the one recognized as the legitimate government.
In the case of Sadam and Qadafi, the US could have stricken a deal. They govern a province; the US government the rest. Let's see which one is more prosperous. Sadam and Qadafi can avoid the gallows and live comfortably. The people that don't like them can move somewhere else.
The problem is, the war in Libya (not sure about Iraq) is not done for the sake of Iraqi's people's interest. It's done for the interests of the industrial war machine industry. I would do what Sadam did if I were given a similar ultimatum.

 

[keepitreal]

This happened in my town

So some immigrants want to kill 40 kids out of protests.
Okay, these immigrants are a bit problematic.
If we let them die, that sucks. That's cruel.
If we let them in, they run our lives.
What about if some people make those refugees area a better place. Rather than letting Syrian refugees go to Europe and turn Europe into another Syria, why not turn Syria into more like Europe?
Rather than letting Venezuela's refugee go to the US, why not turn Venezuela into more like the US?
Say I live in a big house. Say my neighbor is poor and starving. Do I invite him to live with me in my home?
It's just far more practical to say invest in my neighbor's house, turn it into a shop, and hire that neighbor.
If you invite people to your country, they "kind of own" your country, that is true especially if they're poor.
So what's the solution?
Well.... Colonization? No. I don't mean repeating the old blood bath where more advanced countries mass murder fewer advance countries. That's cruel.
I am thinking of something more consensual and mutually beneficial — capitalistic, and hence benign, colonization.
Those refugees have homes that they can't defend. They have bad governments.
On the other hand, there are many rich companies and countries with better government, money, and better military power.
So why not make a deal. Rich, powerful countries, like Israel, or even private investors, can help defend refugees home. Smart investors can also govern better than their current government.
So make an offer. Say a wealthy investor govern and protect their regions. In return, the wealthy investors own say 30% of the land of those regions. Now, if the areas prosper, we just sell that to other investors.
It's a win-win.
Similar deals have been done in the US. US government, give railroad companies land around the railroad they build. When the regions prosper, the land price increase and the land belong to the railroad companies.
It's something like that. So investors can govern a state, and make a profit out of the increased land price. Those investors can hire mercenaries to drive ISIS or whatever causes problems in those land.
Those who govern well will be rich and can buy more and more regions — sort of like those who run a successful business like Google can acquire more and more startups.
I think any businessmen in capitalistic countries, like Bill Gates, can govern 100 times better than Mugabe.

What next?

A house, a car, nicer clothes, a pool, more money...

Rather than letting Venezuela's refugee go to the US, why not turn Venezuela into more like the US?

If they can’t manage what they have,
they can’t manage more

It’ll still be Venezuela

Poor people leave 1 country
to have it easier being poor in our country

 

[JBond]

This happened in my town

So some immigrants want to kill 40 kids out of protests.
Okay, these immigrants are a bit problematic.
If we let them die, that sucks. That's cruel.
If we let them in, they run our lives.
What about if some people make those refugees area a better place. Rather than letting Syrian refugees go to Europe and turn Europe into another Syria, why not turn Syria into more like Europe?
Rather than letting Venezuela's refugee go to the US, why not turn Venezuela into more like the US?
Say I live in a big house. Say my neighbor is poor and starving. Do I invite him to live with me in my home?
It's just far more practical to say invest in my neighbor's house, turn it into a shop, and hire that neighbor.
If you invite people to your country, they "kind of own" your country, that is true especially if they're poor.
So what's the solution?
Well.... Colonization? No. I don't mean repeating the old blood bath where more advanced countries mass murder fewer advance countries. That's cruel.
I am thinking of something more consensual and mutually beneficial — capitalistic, and hence benign, colonization.
Those refugees have homes that they can't defend. They have bad governments.
On the other hand, there are many rich companies and countries with better government, money, and better military power.
So why not make a deal. Rich, powerful countries, like Israel, or even private investors, can help defend refugees home. Smart investors can also govern better than their current government.
So make an offer. Say a wealthy investor govern and protect their regions. In return, the wealthy investors own say 30% of the land of those regions. Now, if the areas prosper, we just sell that to other investors.
It's a win-win.
Similar deals have been done in the US. US government, give railroad companies land around the railroad they build. When the regions prosper, the land price increase and the land belong to the railroad companies.
It's something like that. So investors can govern a state, and make a profit out of the increased land price. Those investors can hire mercenaries to drive ISIS or whatever causes problems in those land.
Those who govern well will be rich and can buy more and more regions — sort of like those who run a successful business like Google can acquire more and more startups.
I think any businessmen in capitalistic countries, like Bill Gates, can govern 100 times better than Mugabe.

No.

 

[grbb]

This happened in my town

So some immigrants want to kill 40 kids out of protests.
Okay, these immigrants are a bit problematic.
If we let them die, that sucks. That's cruel.
If we let them in, they run our lives.
What about if some people make those refugees area a better place. Rather than letting Syrian refugees go to Europe and turn Europe into another Syria, why not turn Syria into more like Europe?
Rather than letting Venezuela's refugee go to the US, why not turn Venezuela into more like the US?
Say I live in a big house. Say my neighbor is poor and starving. Do I invite him to live with me in my home?
It's just far more practical to say invest in my neighbor's house, turn it into a shop, and hire that neighbor.
If you invite people to your country, they "kind of own" your country, that is true especially if they're poor.
So what's the solution?
Well.... Colonization? No. I don't mean repeating the old blood bath where more advanced countries mass murder fewer advance countries. That's cruel.
I am thinking of something more consensual and mutually beneficial — capitalistic, and hence benign, colonization.
Those refugees have homes that they can't defend. They have bad governments.
On the other hand, there are many rich companies and countries with better government, money, and better military power.
So why not make a deal. Rich, powerful countries, like Israel, or even private investors, can help defend refugees home. Smart investors can also govern better than their current government.
So make an offer. Say a wealthy investor govern and protect their regions. In return, the wealthy investors own say 30% of the land of those regions. Now, if the areas prosper, we just sell that to other investors.
It's a win-win.
Similar deals have been done in the US. US government, give railroad companies land around the railroad they build. When the regions prosper, the land price increase and the land belong to the railroad companies.
It's something like that. So investors can govern a state, and make a profit out of the increased land price. Those investors can hire mercenaries to drive ISIS or whatever causes problems in those land.
Those who govern well will be rich and can buy more and more regions — sort of like those who run a successful business like Google can acquire more and more startups.
I think any businessmen in capitalistic countries, like Bill Gates, can govern 100 times better than Mugabe.

What next?

A house, a car, nicer clothes, a pool, more money...

Rather than letting Venezuela's refugee go to the US, why not turn Venezuela into more like the US?

If they can’t manage what they have,
they can’t manage more

It’ll still be Venezuela

Poor people leave one country
to have it easier being poor in our country

You're right they can't manage.

Why not let Bill Gates manage? Turn citizenship into share, give Bill Gates stock options. If it works, it's something you can have here.