5 ms·

I've said it before - eco-migrants should be taken care similarly to warzone migrants. I wouldn't say that dying slowly - "living" a low quality of life in pove

by zerr 11y ago

I've said it before - eco-migrants should be taken care similarly to warzone migrants. I wouldn't say that dying slowly - "living" a low quality of life in poverty is much better than dying in a war... It is a natural human behavior to seek a better life and it is a good thing. The movement/relocation is a basic human right.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The problem is what happens when economic migration intersects with modern democracy and welfare states. Because of the state, migrants (who should be a net positive due to comparative advantage) suddenly become an economic drain and can harm the people in the society they enter. This happens both by taking resources from workers via the welfare state and by voting for harmful policies (though this last part usually happens much later). The best solution to this is of course ending the welfare state and permanent disenfranchisement, not threatening migrants and their potential employers with violence. But far too many people are more about their pet political ideals than about refugees.
- pron 11y ago
  That's been done in late 19th-century America, and the result was mass exploitation of immigrants and increased violence. In fact, regulation in the US (unlike in Europe) started as a response to what happened then (the US population cried for more regulation to save them from the Robber Barons). Of course, it was also a time of great economic growth but also third-world-like inequality. So what you're suggesting isn't a "solution" but merely one approach that may result in an outcome that would be good for some and bad for others -- just like most approaches -- and is based on some values and not others. I think that most people in the West prefer the current, perhaps more subdued reality than the constant struggles of the Gilded Age. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Meanwhile the people not in the west get to suffer dire poverty and war. But I guess those folks don't count. I think that most white people in the south also preferred the current, perhaps more subdued reality of segregation to the constant struggles of integration and economic competition with "those people". Is that a valid argument against eliminating mandatory discrimination?
    - pron 11y ago
      > But I guess those folks don't count. No. But what does helping poor countries have to do with regulation? > Is that a valid argument against eliminating mandatory discrimination? No. As usual you're attributing to me arguments I've never made. I would argue, though, that a person or a group of people have a higher moral responsibility towards a person or a group they've somehow helped reach their current condition. The US as a whole was responsible for slavery in the south, and Europe is at least partially responsible for the condition in the Middle East, especially as their meddling was for their own sake. I think they have a moral imperative to help, either in their own countries to refugees or directly in the ME. I don't support the GP's position of non-intervention. But in either case, your "solution" is completely orthogonal.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to argue. I interpreted your post above as somehow opposing free trade in labor since "most people in the west prefer..." economic protectionism. If you were not, my mistake. As usual you're attributing to me arguments I've never made Why bring up "most people in $GROUP prefer" if that is not a valid argument in favor of a policy? I truly have no idea what you are trying to claim.
        pron 11y ago
        I responded to your statement that "the best solution to this is of course ending the welfare state", and said that's been tried (in late 19th-century America) and wasn't too great for immigrants. In fact, the American welfare state (or at least regulation) started as a response to what happened then. I used "most people prefer" when it comes to valuing free-market vs. regulation, that are two competing controversial values (at least in the US). Regardless of that, when you contribute to someone's harm (as the entire US did to the slaves or as Europe did to large portions of the world), you should assist them. That, too, is a value judgement, but orthogonal to the free-market question, and, I think, a far less controversial one.

by zerr 11y ago

yummyfajitas 11y ago

The problem is what happens when economic migration intersects with modern democracy and welfare states. Because of the state, migrants (who should be a net positive due to comparative advantage) suddenly become an economic drain and can harm the people in the society they enter. This happens both by taking resources from workers via the welfare state and by voting for harmful policies (though this last part usually happens much later). The best solution to this is of course ending the welfare state and permanent disenfranchisement, not threatening migrants and their potential employers with violence. But far too many people are more about their pet political ideals than about refugees.

pron 11y ago
That's been done in late 19th-century America, and the result was mass exploitation of immigrants and increased violence. In fact, regulation in the US (unlike in Europe) started as a response to what happened then (the US population cried for more regulation to save them from the Robber Barons). Of course, it was also a time of great economic growth but also third-world-like inequality. So what you're suggesting isn't a "solution" but merely one approach that may result in an outcome that would be good for some and bad for others -- just like most approaches -- and is based on some values and not others. I think that most people in the West prefer the current, perhaps more subdued reality than the constant struggles of the Gilded Age. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Meanwhile the people not in the west get to suffer dire poverty and war. But I guess those folks don't count. I think that most white people in the south also preferred the current, perhaps more subdued reality of segregation to the constant struggles of integration and economic competition with "those people". Is that a valid argument against eliminating mandatory discrimination?
  - pron 11y ago
    > But I guess those folks don't count. No. But what does helping poor countries have to do with regulation? > Is that a valid argument against eliminating mandatory discrimination? No. As usual you're attributing to me arguments I've never made. I would argue, though, that a person or a group of people have a higher moral responsibility towards a person or a group they've somehow helped reach their current condition. The US as a whole was responsible for slavery in the south, and Europe is at least partially responsible for the condition in the Middle East, especially as their meddling was for their own sake. I think they have a moral imperative to help, either in their own countries to refugees or directly in the ME. I don't support the GP's position of non-intervention. But in either case, your "solution" is completely orthogonal.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to argue. I interpreted your post above as somehow opposing free trade in labor since "most people in the west prefer..." economic protectionism. If you were not, my mistake. As usual you're attributing to me arguments I've never made Why bring up "most people in $GROUP prefer" if that is not a valid argument in favor of a policy? I truly have no idea what you are trying to claim.
      - pron 11y ago
        I responded to your statement that "the best solution to this is of course ending the welfare state", and said that's been tried (in late 19th-century America) and wasn't too great for immigrants. In fact, the American welfare state (or at least regulation) started as a response to what happened then. I used "most people prefer" when it comes to valuing free-market vs. regulation, that are two competing controversial values (at least in the US). Regardless of that, when you contribute to someone's harm (as the entire US did to the slaves or as Europe did to large portions of the world), you should assist them. That, too, is a value judgement, but orthogonal to the free-market question, and, I think, a far less controversial one.