Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
They would be living in my country, demand voting rights, then demand things that the original residents would never vote for, but will have to pay for anyway.
Why should I agree to change (from my POV: destroy) the society where I live?
Btw: I'm not US citizen. I'm European. You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders.
> You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders.
A significant part of the political arm (ie. those who aren't just helping because there are humans in need but have an agenda that transcends any concrete situation) of the "refugees welcome" movement start out from the "human right on free movement" that was mentioned here, and effectively want borders not to exist.
Yes, I realize that. However, it is either political arm, as you wrote, or NGOs financed from abroad. Both are doing it for personal gain. But they are still minority, just very loud one and quite powerful one (not in the democratic sense, though).
However, what they are doing is showing great example to the undecided, who are waking up.
Still the same thing. Group of people "owning" one jurisdiction/sovereign has right to decide, under what conditions they will allow or not allow people from other jurisdictions/sovereigns enter or not. Otherwise, you can move people as you wish and change outcome of any election or referendum by moving the "right" people. Democracy is dead then.
I agree with original poster, freedom to ignore borders is a fake, purposeful invented "human right".
Political borders are an extension of private borders. If the citizens of Metropolis get together and decide that the citizens of Gotham are no longer welcome within their city limits, is that a private border they're defending, or a public one? If it's a public border, then what distinguishes the collective decision of all citizens of Metropolis from an individual decision by a single citizen of Metropolis? If it's a private border, then what distinguishes the border of Metropolis from the border of the United States of America?
Well there are no "real" rights. The pragmatic understanding is that rights are labels that groups agree to use to indicate that something is "very important, the exceptions must be spectacularly well justified". You don't have to agree with the label.
For your private property example, consider UK freedom to roam and statutory right of access laws. It is sometimes called "right to roam". UN and EU have freedom of movement rights, but they do not grant crossing borders other than your own.
The problem is that too many libertarians take the precept that one's body is sacrosanct and extrapolate it to things beyond the body. I agree that one's body belongs to oneself and no one else, that it must not be violated by any one or any group, even in the name of a greater good. And I can agree that the fruits of one's labor cannot also be coerced or taken away, as long as "fruits of one's labor" is very strictly and narrowly defined. I agree that everyone has the "right" to be a selfish jerk.
But this does not extend much beyond your body. Certainly not to land.
Land is the fruit of no one's labor. Rather, we are the fruits of it.
"I agree that one's body belongs to oneself and no one else, that it must not be violated by any one or any group, even in the name of a greater good."
Your personal autonomy is contingent upon your intent to use that autonomy to promote the common good.
Your society, in the name of the greater good, can (and will) take your body from you if you don't use it to employ a minimum amount of consideration for others. And they have every right to.
There are no 'innate' rights. They all require justification, even when that justification is both vague and obvious in our current culture.
But if I invite you onto my property, your freedom of movement includes your right to accept my invitation. Which you can't do if there's a noncooperative national border between you and my property.
Property ownership is pretty much just an agreement among people, it's not a natural right.
In fact, you can discover the real owner of your property if you stop paying property taxes, or when a local government decides they want a road there.
"Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property."
I walk and cycle over other people's land all the time - in fact I have a legal right to do that (with some pretty sensible restrictions). I can't remember ever meeting anyone who had a problem with me doing this - in fact a lot of farmers and gamekeepers seem quite happy to have you there if it's clear you are being sensible.
Interesting. I don't know enough about the economics to comment, but I will say that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and there is a path to a borderless world, which involves something like introducing a process whereby another nation can apply to become another state of the USA. Call it state-level immigration.
So, the USA has serious issues, but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote, and the total freedom of speech and religion. With these two tools in tact, all the other tools can be recreated as needed, according to the times. A member state would get a probation period and then two senate members, some house reps, and a full vote in federal elections. Meanwhile, they'd have to adopt state-level law consistent with US federal law.
The devil is in the details, of course. But maybe if and when software eats the legal system, such a process might be more likely.
(Of course, I have to wonder what is up with Puerto Rico and so many other odd American territories in legal limbo).
> but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote.
I wouldn't call any political system which allows Citizens United or any form of lobbying fair. It overshadows and taints the entire electoral and representative processes.
That is unfair. However, we can still remedy that through the vote.
Motivating people to actually do that is a political problem. Our process is just in this way.
Lazy / uninformed people getting the product of those behaviors is arguably just, given the process does provide meaningful remedies.
It's an interesting dynamic. I do see it as somewhat self-correcting. When it gets ugly enough, the process does allow for meaningful reform. Right now, social progress is good. Good enough to provide motivation for preserving the status quo.
Economic pressures continue to mount, but many people still have options, and what we value as people varies widely. Many don't need or want much, but they value social equality, consideration as people, etc... very highly.
Can the deal be made sweet enough for the peeps to accept an entrenched oligarchy? Who knows?
My point though, on fairness, is the process in the USA is allowing that question to be posed, and posed fairly. Sure, the people are being flooded with a lot of misinformation, but most of those people are completely free to talk among themselves, gather, organize, vote... too.
I will recognize voting rights attacks as unfair. Alabama recently closing DMV offices in poor / black counties is unacceptable. Problems do exist, but so do remedies when people do organize and act.
They have to value doing that first though. More and better advocacy is needed.
"However, we can still remedy that through the vote"
Only indirectly, you're talking about striking "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the end of the First Amendment, and for Citizens United, heavily abridging the freedom of speech and the press.
To do that, you've got to go thorough the amendment process, or a constitutional convention, both of which require buy in from 3/4ths of the governments of the states. To which we elect representatives and governors, but....
That's the question put before us. That we have it, and a meaningful, plausible, non violent answer is just. Not easy, mind you. And the ones who benefit are powerful and seek to advance that power too.
We let them get there. We are going to have to value a remedy enough to check that, or we get what we get.
Edit: And to put a bit sharper point on that, look at how people regard politics. Most of us, and this is my anecdotal experience talking, just don't have time for it.
Why not?
Scenarios like this are direct artifact of a disinterested populace.
If more of us put just a few percent of our free time into basic political action, we could very quickly remedy many things.
What is worth what? Seems that entertainment, play, hobbies, etc... are worth more than a better state of governance is. Even more intriguing is the impact people under 30 can actually have! Not only do they have the time, but they stand to benefit in their lives the most! They quite simply will be living in improved times.
The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see.
The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see.
How fucked up is that?
Well, seeing as how I turn 55 in less than 2 months, I'm inclined to say "probably less fucked up that you think" ^_^.
Wisdom is often comes with age, and I think I've seen enough and learned enough that I can make much better decisions than I could when I was under 30.
(I grant that I'm not the normal case, was politically aware by Nixon's 2nd election in 1972 (knew it was important he win in 1968, but not really why). And I study history, a lot, this comment is being made as a break from reading yet another book about the Manhattan Project.)
As for the disinterested populace, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. The American "leave me alone" and "live and let live" attitudes have a lot to say for them. Especially since they rapidly adjust when things get really bad....
It's not that I think older people are ill informed. They too have time, and they have experience.
Your last point rings true. It's why I say the process is just. People find the difficulty of change for something like Citizens United difficult. That's as intended.
If it's really bad, then more of us will care, and it will get changed.
I didn't really respond as I would have liked to this comment.
It's not anything about older people among us lacking in some way. What I meant with, "how fucked up is that?" has more to do with our crappy political dialog.
Truth is, younger people should be engaged more than they are and they should be hearing what older people have seen and learned too. That experience is a net benefit to everyone when it's shared and there is a dialog about it all.
I've lived my life doing this, nearly always having mentors and trusted others older than me to consult with. It's a huge benefit. All started with literally, "the old farmer up the road" when I was a kid. That guy would just tell me real stuff that really mattered. Got more out of helping him out for the day than I probably even know.
And I would just show up too. "Need some help?" and off we would go. Doing whatever, and once we got comfortable, task at hand moving along nicely, I could just ask stuff. Truth is, I know he loved that, and would tell me all kinds of things, sometimes challenging me in various ways too. Always wanted to know outcomes as well. When I saw some success or other, I would share it back and see that grin...
The political process itself is solid. I've no real complaints, other than some abuses we can and should be more concerned about.
But the dialog is horrible.
That's what I was getting at, and I just didn't put the effort into it that I should have.
There is a case for open borders, in a perfect world. On the other hand, the destination country does not get any equity in the source country, as deferment. Immigrants take up resources (housing, educational, etc.) and send money out (remittances).
Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore. And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure, culture, economy etc? Do they get dividends on the source country which squandered its opportunities (say Indonesia with vast natural resources).
And what's the incentive for the people/gov't in the other countries to shape up? Remember, at the turn of the 20th century[1], lots of poor countries were on par with now developed nations and many developed and rich nations were backwaters (Norway, Sweden) and many powerhouses were very agricultural (the US, Japan, China, Russia) and kind of backward.
I think one could just as well make a case for, wait for it, the great bogey-concept, imperialism.
Why not have Singapore control Indonesia, bring in expertise, a culture of success, government and eradicate corruption gov't malfeasance and bring prosperity to Indonesia, for example?
I mean, what's the difference between Indonesians going to Singapore to become like Singaporeans and adopt some of their culture, versus Singapore having dominion over Indonesia and instilling some of their culture, success, economic prowess, etch, thus becoming a bit Singaporean?
>> "Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore. And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure, culture, economy etc?"
Well some of the concerns you are raising here are offset by simple economics. As more people arrive, due to fixed supply of land and limited ability to import resources, prices of everything will gradually increase, up to a point where the next potential immigrant would no longer be interested in immigrating.
No. The people already there can afford it because they have a job and get paid in the local currency. It's just like what's happened in New York or San Francisco. Don't go there if you're unemployed or it'll be very difficult to survive. Those places allow free immigration from the rest of the US but they've reached capacity and stopped growing much.
Of course this assumes immigrants aren't given social welfare.
_ up to a point where the next potential immigrant would no longer be interested in immigrating_
Do you really think economic immigrants can already afford the current prices? Do they move to the USA because it's cheap? or because it's rich? "Simple economics" don't work well here...
Imperialism can be fantastic, but in much the same way a one-party political system can be fantastic. Only if it happens to be run well. There's no safety valve in case the powerful group goes off the rails oppressing the weaker one.
People seem to prefer living in a bad life as long as they feel their in-group members are responsible for it. For example, India has a democracy and the people keep voting for the corrupt parties that maintain it as a poor country full of suffering. They don't mind because it's themselves causing the problems. In contrast, China doesn't have a democracy but is perhaps treating its people better than India. Yet many Chinese still don't like the authoritarianism. I think it's just a sense of being in control that people want, even if they can't handle it competently.
Strong borders came with the welfare state to avoid a tragedy of the commons.
Remove various fundamental benefits such as public school, medical care, welfare, transit, subsidized X and the millions of other benefits created in the past 120 years and open borders are not as big of a deal anymore. You just need to hop on a boat and arrive at ellis island, like the ancestors of many americans today.
There are also parallels with city zoning laws. Go buy a house and find out how many restrictions and regulations there are on the parcel of land that you have purchased. And also see how much resistance you will get from the local politically active populace if you dare try to change things. Such as creating density. NIMBYism almost seems like a instinctual human reflex.
In other places where there isn't a welfare state and so on, it's usually straight up racism and ethnic nationalism.
I don't know what what you mean by "strong borders" but I can't think of any likely interpretation where I could agree with your statement. I'd say centralization of power, and the advancement of technology, have more relevance.
Anyway, the welfare state (which includes government investment in fundamental tech which led to advances like computing, internet, etc) is a major driver of innovation and growth. More humans coming in, treated well, can obviously contribute. (As they already do, exploited for the most miserable societal tasks.)
It's historically inaccurate, but in practice true that without slowing down immigration it's pretty much impossible to sustain a system in which people "looking for work" are entitled to higher PPP incomes and better services than labourers in virtually all the rest of the world. (But there are obvious drawbacks to taking things to the opposite extreme and banning all immigration: it might be a lot more difficult and expensive to run the NHS without immigrant healthcare professionals, for example)
But of course you're right that borders have been closed by leaders believing they help enforce cultural and political stability for eons before that.
official welfare state might have become a thing just recently but the concept behind like redistribution of wealth and creating opportunities for class mobility predates it by a couple millenia
The Hadrian and Antonine walls close to where I am suggest otherwise. Also a lot of borders well before the "welfare state" were policed carefully to collect taxes - which is why smuggling was such a big thing in many areas.
I agree that the GP's statement is disconnected from history, but I'm not sure that your counterexample works. Rome had "the dole" by the time of Julius Caesar (the "bread" in "bread and circuses").
Democracy is when the people can replace the government if they don't like the way it governs. What we're seeing in Europe and the US these days is that government is trying to replace the people because it doesn't like the way they vote. The unfettered-immigration and amnesty-for-illegals movements on both continents are direct attacks on democracy by governments that think they can get more money or power with a different set of voters. I don't know if anything quite like this has happened before... did the Greeks even have a word for it?
Entryism, but reversed. How much you consider Entryism to be a problem vs a feature of democracy is up for debate. I'm of the opinion that it's a fairly serious problem, in that it can easily destroy the 'Ship of Theseus', the internal continuity of an organization has been compromised.
Looks like we have a low tolerance for populist nationalist rhetoric.
Frankly, as a German I'm disgusted by some of the "dissenting" comments. We've already been through this nationalist crap before and we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes.
That famous German collective guilt kicking in, plus that nice tactics, when any dissent is being labeled by extreme labels.
You are on the best way to destroy Europe again, do you realize that? The rest of Europe is not repeating your mistakes, they are not looking for more Lebensraum and killing Untermenschen, they want to preserve what's theirs. And you have no right to dictate them what to do.
Do you have any confidence that all this, the chaos, violence and economic problems it will inevitably bring, won't cause a return to some form of "this nationalist crap"?
And when you say "we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes", well, I guarantee that attitude is sending chills up the spines of your neighbors.
Even if you don't get open borders, the fact that we have all these treaties which force free flow of capital across but do nothing to allow easier flow of labor across borders is a huge problem. It allows nations with crappy social and political systems to undermine labor welfare and protection policies in better political systems without facing repercussions for it. Unsurprisingly, the asymmetric flows of capital and labor forced by trade agreements play right into the hands of benefitting capital owners across the world at the expense of ordinary workers.
I don't believe completely open borders are necessary or even possible, but every trade agreement that forces free flow of capital (and prevents duties on imports, etc) needs to come with equivalent labor protections as well (massively increased flow of people across borders, and not in a "you're a second class resident who can be deported at your employer's whim" way, or alternatively, removing import duties only as long as laborer a on both sides of the border receive equal labor protections of the law. So if country A offers a minimum wage, it is allowed to impose duties as long as the wages being offered to the workers in country B is less than the cost of living adjusted equivalent salary in that country. )
> It allows nations with crappy social and political systems to undermine labor welfare and protection policies in better political systems without facing repercussions for it.
what about the education and raising cost the country of arrival doesn't have to pay because the country of origin did?
what about the laymen who undermine social security b/c they don't have competition from immigrants?
(I'm just trying to use the same logic to show your argument is incomplete. Researches on free money experiments are showing otherwise)
Secular? Angela Merkel fairly recently (in the context of whether to expand the EU to Turkey) made a statement about European values being Christian values.
Not that I agree with her (the "Christian" values of modern Europe are secular values that have replaced the original Christian values because we spent centuries figuring out that they're wrong so calling our modern values Christian is incredibly misleading) but I wouldn't agree with a blanket statement like "Europe's culture is a secular culture" either.
If anything, Europe's culture is incredibly diverse. Saying immigration/refugees threaten our secular culture is just a nice way of saying you're afraid of the possibility of Islam affecting our liberties -- which is fine by me, as long as you're honest about it.
It is not about Islam. It is about taking religion too seriously. The guys that read Torah all days (or the bible) are worrying too. It is about the strain of Islam that uneducated young arab males bring. Secular Muslims in Istanbul are generally fine people, as are the secular elites while the middle east was ruled by stable governments - and welcome in europe. The hijab is not.
I would say a lot of the discussion should rather be around the current structures and ideas we have formed, and which of them should be challenged. The idea of "countries", "states", "borders", "presidents", are all worth challenging, because not only do borders restrain our "freedom of movement", all of the above mentioned do that in some degree or another. That being said, I don't propose anarchism, just alternatives, something like Seasteading might just have some of the answers. Re-integrating successful seasteading ventures back onto landmass would be great, but certainly a more long term procedure. Change is difficult though, seasteading should not even be necessary for us to consider a different world, but leading by example will probably be what the world needs.
I have been arguing this for years - in a 10% tongue-in-cheek kind of way - and it's strange to see it written down in an article.
The stock response tends to be that in an ideal world it would be great, but it's not practical. Of course, perfectly decent, well-meaning and good-hearted white people sat around dinner tables during apartheid and slavery and said exactly the same thing. History has proven them wrong, and in fact if we imagine popular support for uncontrolled global immigration, it's rather easy to conceive a practical implementation - quotas gradually increased, borders lowered - it could be achieved in a controlled way.
I also hear the 'why should we?' response. Indonesia has squandered its natural resources - aka it's their own fault they're poor. But none of us would stand in front of a classful of Indonesian schoolchildren and say this. Being born in a rich western country is a colossal slice of luck, not a personal achievement. The fact is that thinking of people in terms of nations tends to dehumanise them, and that's one of the reasons why greater migration and a blurring of borders would be a good thing.
The economic arguments around immigration have raged in the press here in the UK for the last few years. Here at least the general academic consensus has been that it's a net plus, and that the additional burden on state benefits is outweighed by the economic benefits of a well-motivated and grateful migrant workforce. The risk to any benefits system is not more people per se, but that it will be abused - ie the development of a benefits culture, where people choose not to work because the safety net will support them. It's up to us to decide whether this attitude is more likely in the indigenous population or with recent economic migrants.
The real barrier to adoption is lack of popular support, and I accept that few people are going to agree with me on this issue. But then again, there's this: http://goo.gl/95g5kQ
Most folks do not know the history of the sovereign state, but the version that we have today is a descendent of the Westphalian State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty). Even fewer people know why it came about in this form, yet the reason it came about may be quite important in this discussion.
After the Thirty Years and Eighty Years Wars came the Westphalian Peace of 1648 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia). A primary objective of the Peace was to recognize sovereignty because during the war and in the time leading up to it integrated economies were wracked by shocks and corruption.
Some argue, and I am mindful that, the only proven bulwark against such shocks and corruption may be sovereignty of the sort that the Westphalian Peace created.
The notion of sovereignty has stood the test of time – it seems reasonably compatible with how collectives of humans perceive and react with their world – but through the modern globalization of capital we may be re-learning a 360 year old lesson.
So while the globalization of human labour has yet to catch up to freedom of international capital flows – a failure that creates tremendous unfairness, and this analysis is admittedly brief and glossy, it is worth keeping in mind that we may be unlocking the same doors that created unfathomable multi-generational wars now long forgotten.
I'm opposed to this on very basic grounds: freedom of expression, and the derived artifact of that, freedom of and from religion.
The economic case is somewhat compelling, but I'll set it aside for now, as that is an open and running political dialog playing out with trade agreements, treaties, etc...
Religion, in the US, is entirely optional. We don't have the concept of a "higher authority" codified in the law. We also permit nearly all expression, and in particular, that expression hostile to powerful interests and the government itself.
I often see and hear about things I find completely unacceptable in nations that have not gone there. Religious law, of various kinds, can justify nearly anything. Secular law is similar, but the debate can be meaningful and at least composed of things we can put into a courtroom and reason about.
"God says..." is irrational. We have absolutely nothing on record at all. Thomas Paine details this, and derives the basis for natural rights for us as peer beings in the world, as well as the concept of self-governance in "Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" --The latter, saw him jailed for a number of years due to how angry Catholics got over that work.
On a basic level, we are all just beings here. If one takes that concept of fundamental equality, and mutual ignorance (no higher authority, no real definitive record or understanding of our origins), a lot of the social progress we've seen are obvious conclusions.
These things are very important to me. I want that basic realization and consideration just as much as I understand my peers here want it, and arguably we all need it too.
Borders do actually compartmentalize the world in ways that compare and contrast these ideas with other, older ideas, and it's very important that the increasingly connected people of the world see all of that play out, so that we may continue to see the social and human benefits expand.
Economics is another discussion, and it has just as much potential to do harm, oppress, etc... as the social issues do, but we are on the upside of social issues, and trading that for improved economics isn't something I feel good about.
76 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadI wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
It's related, just different in scope.
Why should I agree to change (from my POV: destroy) the society where I live?
Btw: I'm not US citizen. I'm European. You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders.
A significant part of the political arm (ie. those who aren't just helping because there are humans in need but have an agenda that transcends any concrete situation) of the "refugees welcome" movement start out from the "human right on free movement" that was mentioned here, and effectively want borders not to exist.
However, what they are doing is showing great example to the undecided, who are waking up.
Yes, the point, that someone may be minority in his opinion can be conveyed in a different way.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-...)
I agree with original poster, freedom to ignore borders is a fake, purposeful invented "human right".
For your private property example, consider UK freedom to roam and statutory right of access laws. It is sometimes called "right to roam". UN and EU have freedom of movement rights, but they do not grant crossing borders other than your own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
But this does not extend much beyond your body. Certainly not to land.
Land is the fruit of no one's labor. Rather, we are the fruits of it.
Your personal autonomy is contingent upon your intent to use that autonomy to promote the common good.
Your society, in the name of the greater good, can (and will) take your body from you if you don't use it to employ a minimum amount of consideration for others. And they have every right to.
There are no 'innate' rights. They all require justification, even when that justification is both vague and obvious in our current culture.
You've basically said that society can, for example, force you to work on a farm if others are starving, even if you yourself are content to starve.
That's ridiculous.
In fact, you can discover the real owner of your property if you stop paying property taxes, or when a local government decides they want a road there.
I walk and cycle over other people's land all the time - in fact I have a legal right to do that (with some pretty sensible restrictions). I can't remember ever meeting anyone who had a problem with me doing this - in fact a lot of farmers and gamekeepers seem quite happy to have you there if it's clear you are being sensible.
So, the USA has serious issues, but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote, and the total freedom of speech and religion. With these two tools in tact, all the other tools can be recreated as needed, according to the times. A member state would get a probation period and then two senate members, some house reps, and a full vote in federal elections. Meanwhile, they'd have to adopt state-level law consistent with US federal law.
The devil is in the details, of course. But maybe if and when software eats the legal system, such a process might be more likely.
(Of course, I have to wonder what is up with Puerto Rico and so many other odd American territories in legal limbo).
I wouldn't call any political system which allows Citizens United or any form of lobbying fair. It overshadows and taints the entire electoral and representative processes.
Motivating people to actually do that is a political problem. Our process is just in this way.
Lazy / uninformed people getting the product of those behaviors is arguably just, given the process does provide meaningful remedies.
It's an interesting dynamic. I do see it as somewhat self-correcting. When it gets ugly enough, the process does allow for meaningful reform. Right now, social progress is good. Good enough to provide motivation for preserving the status quo.
Economic pressures continue to mount, but many people still have options, and what we value as people varies widely. Many don't need or want much, but they value social equality, consideration as people, etc... very highly.
Can the deal be made sweet enough for the peeps to accept an entrenched oligarchy? Who knows?
My point though, on fairness, is the process in the USA is allowing that question to be posed, and posed fairly. Sure, the people are being flooded with a lot of misinformation, but most of those people are completely free to talk among themselves, gather, organize, vote... too.
I will recognize voting rights attacks as unfair. Alabama recently closing DMV offices in poor / black counties is unacceptable. Problems do exist, but so do remedies when people do organize and act.
They have to value doing that first though. More and better advocacy is needed.
Only indirectly, you're talking about striking "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the end of the First Amendment, and for Citizens United, heavily abridging the freedom of speech and the press.
To do that, you've got to go thorough the amendment process, or a constitutional convention, both of which require buy in from 3/4ths of the governments of the states. To which we elect representatives and governors, but....
What is worth what?
That's the question put before us. That we have it, and a meaningful, plausible, non violent answer is just. Not easy, mind you. And the ones who benefit are powerful and seek to advance that power too.
We let them get there. We are going to have to value a remedy enough to check that, or we get what we get.
Edit: And to put a bit sharper point on that, look at how people regard politics. Most of us, and this is my anecdotal experience talking, just don't have time for it.
Why not?
Scenarios like this are direct artifact of a disinterested populace.
If more of us put just a few percent of our free time into basic political action, we could very quickly remedy many things.
What is worth what? Seems that entertainment, play, hobbies, etc... are worth more than a better state of governance is. Even more intriguing is the impact people under 30 can actually have! Not only do they have the time, but they stand to benefit in their lives the most! They quite simply will be living in improved times.
The most active voters are elderly people, who are thinking of a future they are not likely to see.
How fucked up is that?
How fucked up is that?
Well, seeing as how I turn 55 in less than 2 months, I'm inclined to say "probably less fucked up that you think" ^_^.
Wisdom is often comes with age, and I think I've seen enough and learned enough that I can make much better decisions than I could when I was under 30.
(I grant that I'm not the normal case, was politically aware by Nixon's 2nd election in 1972 (knew it was important he win in 1968, but not really why). And I study history, a lot, this comment is being made as a break from reading yet another book about the Manhattan Project.)
As for the disinterested populace, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. The American "leave me alone" and "live and let live" attitudes have a lot to say for them. Especially since they rapidly adjust when things get really bad....
It's not that I think older people are ill informed. They too have time, and they have experience.
Your last point rings true. It's why I say the process is just. People find the difficulty of change for something like Citizens United difficult. That's as intended.
If it's really bad, then more of us will care, and it will get changed.
It's not anything about older people among us lacking in some way. What I meant with, "how fucked up is that?" has more to do with our crappy political dialog.
Truth is, younger people should be engaged more than they are and they should be hearing what older people have seen and learned too. That experience is a net benefit to everyone when it's shared and there is a dialog about it all.
I've lived my life doing this, nearly always having mentors and trusted others older than me to consult with. It's a huge benefit. All started with literally, "the old farmer up the road" when I was a kid. That guy would just tell me real stuff that really mattered. Got more out of helping him out for the day than I probably even know.
And I would just show up too. "Need some help?" and off we would go. Doing whatever, and once we got comfortable, task at hand moving along nicely, I could just ask stuff. Truth is, I know he loved that, and would tell me all kinds of things, sometimes challenging me in various ways too. Always wanted to know outcomes as well. When I saw some success or other, I would share it back and see that grin...
The political process itself is solid. I've no real complaints, other than some abuses we can and should be more concerned about.
But the dialog is horrible.
That's what I was getting at, and I just didn't put the effort into it that I should have.
Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore. And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure, culture, economy etc? Do they get dividends on the source country which squandered its opportunities (say Indonesia with vast natural resources).
And what's the incentive for the people/gov't in the other countries to shape up? Remember, at the turn of the 20th century[1], lots of poor countries were on par with now developed nations and many developed and rich nations were backwaters (Norway, Sweden) and many powerhouses were very agricultural (the US, Japan, China, Russia) and kind of backward.
I think one could just as well make a case for, wait for it, the great bogey-concept, imperialism.
Why not have Singapore control Indonesia, bring in expertise, a culture of success, government and eradicate corruption gov't malfeasance and bring prosperity to Indonesia, for example?
I mean, what's the difference between Indonesians going to Singapore to become like Singaporeans and adopt some of their culture, versus Singapore having dominion over Indonesia and instilling some of their culture, success, economic prowess, etch, thus becoming a bit Singaporean?
[1]http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...
graphs show disparity in the 2 - 3x in the early 20th cent.
Well some of the concerns you are raising here are offset by simple economics. As more people arrive, due to fixed supply of land and limited ability to import resources, prices of everything will gradually increase, up to a point where the next potential immigrant would no longer be interested in immigrating.
Of course this assumes immigrants aren't given social welfare.
Yeah, that is the key point I was implicitly not assuming. Thanks.
Do you really think economic immigrants can already afford the current prices? Do they move to the USA because it's cheap? or because it's rich? "Simple economics" don't work well here...
People seem to prefer living in a bad life as long as they feel their in-group members are responsible for it. For example, India has a democracy and the people keep voting for the corrupt parties that maintain it as a poor country full of suffering. They don't mind because it's themselves causing the problems. In contrast, China doesn't have a democracy but is perhaps treating its people better than India. Yet many Chinese still don't like the authoritarianism. I think it's just a sense of being in control that people want, even if they can't handle it competently.
Remove various fundamental benefits such as public school, medical care, welfare, transit, subsidized X and the millions of other benefits created in the past 120 years and open borders are not as big of a deal anymore. You just need to hop on a boat and arrive at ellis island, like the ancestors of many americans today.
There are also parallels with city zoning laws. Go buy a house and find out how many restrictions and regulations there are on the parcel of land that you have purchased. And also see how much resistance you will get from the local politically active populace if you dare try to change things. Such as creating density. NIMBYism almost seems like a instinctual human reflex.
In other places where there isn't a welfare state and so on, it's usually straight up racism and ethnic nationalism.
I don't know what what you mean by "strong borders" but I can't think of any likely interpretation where I could agree with your statement. I'd say centralization of power, and the advancement of technology, have more relevance.
Far before then, rulers and nation states restricted human movement. (http://newint.org/features/1991/09/05/simply/)
Anyway, the welfare state (which includes government investment in fundamental tech which led to advances like computing, internet, etc) is a major driver of innovation and growth. More humans coming in, treated well, can obviously contribute. (As they already do, exploited for the most miserable societal tasks.)
But of course you're right that borders have been closed by leaders believing they help enforce cultural and political stability for eons before that.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/alimenta http://www.britannica.com/topic/civitas
The Hadrian and Antonine walls close to where I am suggest otherwise. Also a lot of borders well before the "welfare state" were policed carefully to collect taxes - which is why smuggling was such a big thing in many areas.
Frankly, as a German I'm disgusted by some of the "dissenting" comments. We've already been through this nationalist crap before and we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes.
You are on the best way to destroy Europe again, do you realize that? The rest of Europe is not repeating your mistakes, they are not looking for more Lebensraum and killing Untermenschen, they want to preserve what's theirs. And you have no right to dictate them what to do.
And when you say "we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes", well, I guarantee that attitude is sending chills up the spines of your neighbors.
Do they still have this universal right of freedom to move?
I don't believe completely open borders are necessary or even possible, but every trade agreement that forces free flow of capital (and prevents duties on imports, etc) needs to come with equivalent labor protections as well (massively increased flow of people across borders, and not in a "you're a second class resident who can be deported at your employer's whim" way, or alternatively, removing import duties only as long as laborer a on both sides of the border receive equal labor protections of the law. So if country A offers a minimum wage, it is allowed to impose duties as long as the wages being offered to the workers in country B is less than the cost of living adjusted equivalent salary in that country. )
Not that I agree with her (the "Christian" values of modern Europe are secular values that have replaced the original Christian values because we spent centuries figuring out that they're wrong so calling our modern values Christian is incredibly misleading) but I wouldn't agree with a blanket statement like "Europe's culture is a secular culture" either.
If anything, Europe's culture is incredibly diverse. Saying immigration/refugees threaten our secular culture is just a nice way of saying you're afraid of the possibility of Islam affecting our liberties -- which is fine by me, as long as you're honest about it.
The stock response tends to be that in an ideal world it would be great, but it's not practical. Of course, perfectly decent, well-meaning and good-hearted white people sat around dinner tables during apartheid and slavery and said exactly the same thing. History has proven them wrong, and in fact if we imagine popular support for uncontrolled global immigration, it's rather easy to conceive a practical implementation - quotas gradually increased, borders lowered - it could be achieved in a controlled way.
I also hear the 'why should we?' response. Indonesia has squandered its natural resources - aka it's their own fault they're poor. But none of us would stand in front of a classful of Indonesian schoolchildren and say this. Being born in a rich western country is a colossal slice of luck, not a personal achievement. The fact is that thinking of people in terms of nations tends to dehumanise them, and that's one of the reasons why greater migration and a blurring of borders would be a good thing.
The economic arguments around immigration have raged in the press here in the UK for the last few years. Here at least the general academic consensus has been that it's a net plus, and that the additional burden on state benefits is outweighed by the economic benefits of a well-motivated and grateful migrant workforce. The risk to any benefits system is not more people per se, but that it will be abused - ie the development of a benefits culture, where people choose not to work because the safety net will support them. It's up to us to decide whether this attitude is more likely in the indigenous population or with recent economic migrants.
The real barrier to adoption is lack of popular support, and I accept that few people are going to agree with me on this issue. But then again, there's this: http://goo.gl/95g5kQ
After the Thirty Years and Eighty Years Wars came the Westphalian Peace of 1648 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia). A primary objective of the Peace was to recognize sovereignty because during the war and in the time leading up to it integrated economies were wracked by shocks and corruption.
Some argue, and I am mindful that, the only proven bulwark against such shocks and corruption may be sovereignty of the sort that the Westphalian Peace created.
The notion of sovereignty has stood the test of time – it seems reasonably compatible with how collectives of humans perceive and react with their world – but through the modern globalization of capital we may be re-learning a 360 year old lesson.
So while the globalization of human labour has yet to catch up to freedom of international capital flows – a failure that creates tremendous unfairness, and this analysis is admittedly brief and glossy, it is worth keeping in mind that we may be unlocking the same doors that created unfathomable multi-generational wars now long forgotten.
The economic case is somewhat compelling, but I'll set it aside for now, as that is an open and running political dialog playing out with trade agreements, treaties, etc...
Religion, in the US, is entirely optional. We don't have the concept of a "higher authority" codified in the law. We also permit nearly all expression, and in particular, that expression hostile to powerful interests and the government itself.
I often see and hear about things I find completely unacceptable in nations that have not gone there. Religious law, of various kinds, can justify nearly anything. Secular law is similar, but the debate can be meaningful and at least composed of things we can put into a courtroom and reason about.
"God says..." is irrational. We have absolutely nothing on record at all. Thomas Paine details this, and derives the basis for natural rights for us as peer beings in the world, as well as the concept of self-governance in "Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" --The latter, saw him jailed for a number of years due to how angry Catholics got over that work.
On a basic level, we are all just beings here. If one takes that concept of fundamental equality, and mutual ignorance (no higher authority, no real definitive record or understanding of our origins), a lot of the social progress we've seen are obvious conclusions.
These things are very important to me. I want that basic realization and consideration just as much as I understand my peers here want it, and arguably we all need it too.
Borders do actually compartmentalize the world in ways that compare and contrast these ideas with other, older ideas, and it's very important that the increasingly connected people of the world see all of that play out, so that we may continue to see the social and human benefits expand.
Economics is another discussion, and it has just as much potential to do harm, oppress, etc... as the social issues do, but we are on the upside of social issues, and trading that for improved economics isn't something I feel good about.