5 ms·

It's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same exact argument that people make against more permissive immigration. Compare: A

by kauffj 11y ago

It's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same exact argument that people make against more permissive immigration. Compare: A: Allowing people trapped in unproductive countries to move to US/Canada/Europe would significantly improve their quality of life. B: But think of burden to the welfare state! We wouldn't be able to afford the flood of people moving here for benefits. A: Simple, just don't allow them benefits. Many people would still move to US/Canada/Europe even if excluded completely from the social safety net (or voting, etc.). B: The thought of so many destitute people being in my country and not receiving help makes me uncomfortable. The predominant attitude people hold toward the poor/disadvantaged outside their country is no different than Keller's: I simply do not want to be confronted with this. I'd prefer to not see it and pretend it wasn't there. (Please do not take this as an argument for open borders, it is just an attempt to highlight a hypocrisy.)

qrendel 11y ago
To add to that hypocrisy, there's also the outrage when jobs go to the most impoverished in other countries, rather than be given to comparatively wealthy westerners at the expense of both the companies and foreign communities. If you're single w/ no dependents and making $54k or more a year, you are already in the top 1% of the global population by income.[1] Makes a lot of the anti-1% stuff come off as extremely hypocritical. [1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/
- vkou 11y ago
  If you completely ignore purchasing power, you can make up any statistics about income you want. ~50% of the world's population has a negative, or a zero net worth - I guess the homeless person with two dollars in his pocket is better off then a janitor who owns an underwater house, or a freshly graduated doctor.
  - qrendel 11y ago
    Across all goods, purchasing power is still lower for the median worker in an impoverished country compared to the median western worker. Look at the price of all goods you can afford (healthcare, electronics, etc), not just a few specific items like food and rent. Many of those may not even be available in the poorer country at any realistic price. That aside, an equivalent USD wage will still provide for more people in a poor country than in a rich one.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I have a theory that "left" and "right" can be replaced with how a big a circle of humanity you care about. The people towards the right care about their family, or their community. The people on the left care about a slightly wider circle. On the far "right" you get sociopaths that only care about themselves. On the far "left" you get utopian hippies that care about people suffering on the other side of the world. What this frame of reference shows is how close together the traditional left-right are in a wider view. Someone who wants to tax the rich to help the poor doesn't often mean using money from Americans to help Mexicans or Ethiopians, they mean taxing rich Americans to give to the sligthly less rich Americans.
- aback 11y ago
  I have long agreed with this theory. There's a reason why the right is like that IMO, and it gets down to this diagram: http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1aaee07d8101970433020eee016ff9b/tumblr_inline_nc08pwQvUf1qa7qjn.png http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1aaee07d8101970433020eee016ff9b/... It is my opinion that people naturally care mostly about themselves, then the people closest to them, and less about people on the other side of the world. It is also my opinion (referring to the diagram) that the closer you are to being the person with the "need", the more effectively and efficiently you can address the need. So in general, a person is best able to help themselves, less able to help the people closest to them, and even less able to help others. This can be envisioned as rings of concentric circles, where each larger circle represents more and more people, but less and less sphere of influence or ability to understand the "needs". Along with that goes trust. The closer you are to someone (literally and figuratively) the more trust you will have. So these concentric rings are also rings of trust. I can count on my wife to be there for me when it's time to have my butt wiped. You, who I've never met, probably won't even offer help out. When my BFF tells me something, I automatically believe it, because after 30 years, AFAIK he's never lied to me. When a stranger on the street tells me something, I'm hard-pressed to even pay attention. So if someone is close to you, then not only can you assess / relate to that person's needs, but you can also trust that person not to abuse your generosity. So in a family or among close friends, communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need) is usually the norm and usually works fine. What's mine is yours. Mi casa es su casa. I know you, you know me, we won't hurt each other. But in the world, capitalism / plutocracy / might makes right is the norm. As distasteful as it is, and as much as I understand that the people on the other side of the world desperately need my money, I'm much more inclined to give it to my wife, or friend, because I have far more trust that it will be used effectively and efficiently. And I have to also consider that, being someone very foreign to me, that you might be hostile to me, and use my generosity against me. So sorry, if I don't know you, you're on your own. That's why I like to call myself a "micro communist" and "macro capitalist." Now in reality of course I offer kindness to strangers because I'm not a sociopath. But let's be honest: the kindness I show a homeless man (a dollar or two, or a meal) is not the kindness I show my wife or child (my kidney, my home, my life).
vox_mollis 11y ago
It's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same exact argument that people make against more permissive immigration. This is simply untrue. You'll find that those of us opposed to open borders keep our mouths shut specifically because our opinions make us persona non grata with our peers. Make no mistake, pro-border-control people are extremely persecuted and marginalized anywhere in the coastal US, just as much as the author of this piece.

by kauffj 11y ago

qrendel 11y ago

To add to that hypocrisy, there's also the outrage when jobs go to the most impoverished in other countries, rather than be given to comparatively wealthy westerners at the expense of both the companies and foreign communities. If you're single w/ no dependents and making $54k or more a year, you are already in the top 1% of the global population by income.[1] Makes a lot of the anti-1% stuff come off as extremely hypocritical. [1] https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i/

vkou 11y ago
If you completely ignore purchasing power, you can make up any statistics about income you want. ~50% of the world's population has a negative, or a zero net worth - I guess the homeless person with two dollars in his pocket is better off then a janitor who owns an underwater house, or a freshly graduated doctor.
- qrendel 11y ago
  Across all goods, purchasing power is still lower for the median worker in an impoverished country compared to the median western worker. Look at the price of all goods you can afford (healthcare, electronics, etc), not just a few specific items like food and rent. Many of those may not even be available in the poorer country at any realistic price. That aside, an equivalent USD wage will still provide for more people in a poor country than in a rich one.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

I have a theory that "left" and "right" can be replaced with how a big a circle of humanity you care about. The people towards the right care about their family, or their community. The people on the left care about a slightly wider circle. On the far "right" you get sociopaths that only care about themselves. On the far "left" you get utopian hippies that care about people suffering on the other side of the world. What this frame of reference shows is how close together the traditional left-right are in a wider view. Someone who wants to tax the rich to help the poor doesn't often mean using money from Americans to help Mexicans or Ethiopians, they mean taxing rich Americans to give to the sligthly less rich Americans.

aback 11y ago
I have long agreed with this theory. There's a reason why the right is like that IMO, and it gets down to this diagram: http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1aaee07d8101970433020eee016ff9b/tumblr_inline_nc08pwQvUf1qa7qjn.png http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1aaee07d8101970433020eee016ff9b/... It is my opinion that people naturally care mostly about themselves, then the people closest to them, and less about people on the other side of the world. It is also my opinion (referring to the diagram) that the closer you are to being the person with the "need", the more effectively and efficiently you can address the need. So in general, a person is best able to help themselves, less able to help the people closest to them, and even less able to help others. This can be envisioned as rings of concentric circles, where each larger circle represents more and more people, but less and less sphere of influence or ability to understand the "needs". Along with that goes trust. The closer you are to someone (literally and figuratively) the more trust you will have. So these concentric rings are also rings of trust. I can count on my wife to be there for me when it's time to have my butt wiped. You, who I've never met, probably won't even offer help out. When my BFF tells me something, I automatically believe it, because after 30 years, AFAIK he's never lied to me. When a stranger on the street tells me something, I'm hard-pressed to even pay attention. So if someone is close to you, then not only can you assess / relate to that person's needs, but you can also trust that person not to abuse your generosity. So in a family or among close friends, communism (from each according to ability, to each according to need) is usually the norm and usually works fine. What's mine is yours. Mi casa es su casa. I know you, you know me, we won't hurt each other. But in the world, capitalism / plutocracy / might makes right is the norm. As distasteful as it is, and as much as I understand that the people on the other side of the world desperately need my money, I'm much more inclined to give it to my wife, or friend, because I have far more trust that it will be used effectively and efficiently. And I have to also consider that, being someone very foreign to me, that you might be hostile to me, and use my generosity against me. So sorry, if I don't know you, you're on your own. That's why I like to call myself a "micro communist" and "macro capitalist." Now in reality of course I offer kindness to strangers because I'm not a sociopath. But let's be honest: the kindness I show a homeless man (a dollar or two, or a meal) is not the kindness I show my wife or child (my kidney, my home, my life).

vox_mollis 11y ago

It's ironic that Keller will get so much shit dumped on him for making the same exact argument that people make against more permissive immigration. This is simply untrue. You'll find that those of us opposed to open borders keep our mouths shut specifically because our opinions make us persona non grata with our peers. Make no mistake, pro-border-control people are extremely persecuted and marginalized anywhere in the coastal US, just as much as the author of this piece.