Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

green_flash t1_jdskdhu wrote

Reply to comment by Diabotek in Banksy's migrant rescue ship seized by Italy's coast guard in Lampedusa by Crimbobimbobippitybo

I don't see how one prevents us from doing the other.

It's like arguing we can't help the homeless until we have found out what drives homelessness.

−7

6bb26ec559294f7f t1_jdt9wci wrote

The problem is incentives. If you make a charity to buy child slaves and free them, you create an incentive to produce more child slaves. Even though you are directly helping children, literally saving child slaves, you create an economic incentive for more child slaves. This isn't purely hypothetical, anti-slavery charities don't spend money directly buying and freeing slaves for this very reason.

I'm not saying the same does apply here, only raising an example to show that it is possible that helping to solve a problem can instead make it worse.

59

GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je6ajc3 wrote

>I'm not saying the same does apply here, only raising an example to show that it is possible that helping to solve a problem can instead make it worse.

I agree. If we rescue the migrants who paid smugglers thousands € and bring them into EU, it will encourage smugglers to lure more and more migrants that they succeed. More migrants will pay smugglers to get trafficked...

If no migrants want to cross the sea, the smugglers won't get custumers and will stop it. I doubt they do it for free.

It's better for EU to take tougher measures. Save them from drawning but they won't be allowed to resettle within any EU countries but in safe africans country that have a booming economy, jobs, freedom, democracy, protect people's rights, .....with EU's funds through investment.

Once migrants know they won't be allowed into EU by crossing the sea. They won't pay smugllers to do that. And those human trafficking will stop.

1

green_flash t1_jdufhrg wrote

That's not quite the same. Buying child slaves gives money to the slaveholders. That's why charities don't do it. Freeing slaves without giving money to slaveholders is not an issue at all.

−4

Kaltias t1_jduhpsw wrote

Making the trip through the Mediterranean easier saves money to the human traffickers because they can give the boat 20 km of fuel then call a ship to rescue them. This makes it cheaper for them but they charge the same money, so it's a profit for the traffickers.

I'm not trying to say the NGOs are willingly complicit in human trafficking, i think they just want to save people that risk their lives, but it doesn't mean the traffickers don't use them to their advantage regardless

21

green_flash t1_jdukk2n wrote

That way of thinking is extremely cynical. You could use it to argue against any charitable operation that helps victims of crime - and even against any safety mechanism. Doctors are bad because their existence incentivizes people to take risks they might shy away from if there were no doctors. Leaving injured people to die is good because it prevents others from taking unnecessary risk.

−6

Kaltias t1_jdul5ii wrote

I'm not arguing either way, i'm telling you what the human traffickers think about it. I don't have an acceptable solution to the problem. But if they weren't extremely cynical people they would do something else in their lives rather than sending people on a literal sinking boat after extorting them and robbing them, you're mistaken if you think they look at a rescue ship as anything else than a way to make their profit margin even bigger.

10

GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je6bsx4 wrote

I agree. If we rescue the migrants who paid smugglers thousands € and bring them into EU, it will encourage smugglers to lure more and more migrants that they succeed. More migrants will pay smugglers to get trafficked......a no-ending cycle that will go on for years.

If no migrants want to cross the sea, the smugglers won't get custumers and will stop it. Because I doubt they do it for free.

Implemanting laws that anybody who cross the sea won't be allowed into any EU countries (not even their asylum cases) and be relocated into safe africans countries (that have a booming economy) will discourage many migrants to try to do it. And the trafficking will stop instantly until EU have a better immigration system for migrants/refugees.

You have to be tough in some situation to get better result.

1

6bb26ec559294f7f t1_jdw8u1z wrote

> Doctors are bad because their existence incentivizes people to take risks they might shy away from if there were no doctors.

I haven't seen any seriously make this argument for doctors because they are too far removed from decision making, but it is a discussion when adding new safety features to a dangerous activity. If the new safety feature encourages more dangerous behavior, then the safety needs to be worth the increase in dangerous behavior. Generally it is. Sometimes it isn't but it is added for legal/liability reasons; that's another case of perverse incentives.

1

GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je69icp wrote

>Doctors are bad because their existence incentivizes people to take risks they might shy away from if there were no doctors.

Wrong take. Doctor exist to analyze patient and disease that are unintentional act.

And I don't think people take risk because there are doctors as the risks are on themselves and they have to pay from their pocket...so they won't likely put themselves on danger because Doctor exist for that.

While those migrants take the route because they know they either make it or there would be rescuer that will save them.

1

Diabotek t1_jdsqay1 wrote

Except no solution has been offered at all.

Helping others while looking for a solution is fine. Refusing to look for a solution is unacceptable.

6

green_flash t1_jdssimo wrote

That's not the fault of the people helping the homeless.

3