4 ms·

How about the people who decided that they didn't like their land in Nigeria, but decided to move to Dublin, Ireland because they like it there better. What th

How about the people who decided that they didn't like their land in Nigeria, but decided to move to Dublin, Ireland because they like it there better. What then? Government creates property rights, which is what Land really is about, and there appears to be a limited supply to go around. Thereby only citizens of a country who pay taxes should have the right to own Land. Does this make sense?

bufordsharkley 10y ago
What happens when people in Virginia decide they want to move to California? Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral.
- internaut 10y ago
  If that literally happened there would be ructions. And those two groups are not that dissimilar. > Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral. Large numbers of Nigerians moved to Dublin. Robbery, fraud, violence shot up immediately and the CSO (gov stats) shows they are mostly not working and are recipients of state aid. I used to believe in open borders once until I started living in some estates with migrants and started seeing the horrendous shit they were up to. Stealing cars, beating people up, probably murdering people judging by some of the awful sounds and continual police visits. I still do, but only for people like me. It might not be based on ethic identity necessarily but it should be based on something. Geekdom perhaps. Otherwise, unwelcome though it is, violence is an inevitability. Those borders were there for a reason. If you remove the borders then you need to remove the reason also. Until then we shall resolve conflict with violence. Calling that immoral solves nothing.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery, and they were just as incoherent at addressing the root moral evil.
    - internaut 10y ago
      That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature. I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it was like coming home from a distant journey. I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal battle between the lumpers and splitters. > Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it. > You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders. You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a rhetorical explanation for the motion. > just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that statement because the differences may be too stark by then. A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries, with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable. There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to commute with transports that caused splitting. I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics. What I do know is that historically large population movements of different peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why they won't be once more.
- internaut 10y ago
  I want to ask you something else. Your name sounds Irish actually. Have you ever lived in an areas with a large foreign population? Do you have any experience of those cultures apart from the television and holidaying. You have to understand this is nothing to do with individuals. This is about groups and they don't behave like individuals somehow. I've worked with a chap from the Congo, model citizen. Also a South African with a temper who couldn't work to save his life. I've worked with a guy from Pakistan and it was a car wreck because his views on women could only be described as vile, I literally saw him watching a woman being stoned to death for adultery and he thought it was hilarious. You don't want to live next door to somebody like that with your family. There are good people everywhere. This is defined by me as whether those people are like us. It is just that you have to discriminate when people are doing evil things, sometimes in prodigious quantity. There's no two ways about it. Values really are that different in different places. There are parts of our world in which the rape of children and slavery are not illegal because they are so common and even when they are made illegal the practices continue. There are tribes that literally practice human sacrifice and cannibalism, still, in this world. These are their cultural values! That means borders, and if you don't allow borders on the outside of a country then they develop themselves on the inside of a country. Look at the USA, they have gated communities because there exist predominately minority group areas with high crime rates. A border is basically a filter for people. If you are saying this is immoral you need to explain why castle walls and border patrols are a recurrent feature of humankind since forever. The borders are literally in the landscape around us in Europe. This is something that goes way deep and it won't be shifted by waving your hands philosophically.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    > These are their cultural values! There are horrible cultures in the world; I agree. > That means borders NOPE This merely traps people where these bad cultures are, and this in my mind is the great immorality. You cannot tell a person "you live in a failed place, but you stuck there forever in poverty, and because of the luck of where I am born, I am entitled to greater things." You allow for a free movement of people, you will perhaps see a transient spreading of some worse cultures, but in a free marketplace of ideas, they will not remain ascendent-- barbarities and oppression simply aren't very effective. Loss-aversion is no way to build a community. > and if you don't allow borders on the outside of a country then they develop themselves on the inside of a country. Look at the USA, they have gated communities because there exist predominately minority group areas with high crime rates. Very true, which is why Georgists pull for a Land Value Tax, which would do much to end this segregation.

bufordsharkley 10y ago

What happens when people in Virginia decide they want to move to California? Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral.

internaut 10y ago
If that literally happened there would be ructions. And those two groups are not that dissimilar. > Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral. Large numbers of Nigerians moved to Dublin. Robbery, fraud, violence shot up immediately and the CSO (gov stats) shows they are mostly not working and are recipients of state aid. I used to believe in open borders once until I started living in some estates with migrants and started seeing the horrendous shit they were up to. Stealing cars, beating people up, probably murdering people judging by some of the awful sounds and continual police visits. I still do, but only for people like me. It might not be based on ethic identity necessarily but it should be based on something. Geekdom perhaps. Otherwise, unwelcome though it is, violence is an inevitability. Those borders were there for a reason. If you remove the borders then you need to remove the reason also. Until then we shall resolve conflict with violence. Calling that immoral solves nothing.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery, and they were just as incoherent at addressing the root moral evil.
  - internaut 10y ago
    That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature. I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it was like coming home from a distant journey. I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal battle between the lumpers and splitters. > Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it. > You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders. You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a rhetorical explanation for the motion. > just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that statement because the differences may be too stark by then. A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries, with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable. There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to commute with transports that caused splitting. I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics. What I do know is that historically large population movements of different peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why they won't be once more.
internaut 10y ago
I want to ask you something else. Your name sounds Irish actually. Have you ever lived in an areas with a large foreign population? Do you have any experience of those cultures apart from the television and holidaying. You have to understand this is nothing to do with individuals. This is about groups and they don't behave like individuals somehow. I've worked with a chap from the Congo, model citizen. Also a South African with a temper who couldn't work to save his life. I've worked with a guy from Pakistan and it was a car wreck because his views on women could only be described as vile, I literally saw him watching a woman being stoned to death for adultery and he thought it was hilarious. You don't want to live next door to somebody like that with your family. There are good people everywhere. This is defined by me as whether those people are like us. It is just that you have to discriminate when people are doing evil things, sometimes in prodigious quantity. There's no two ways about it. Values really are that different in different places. There are parts of our world in which the rape of children and slavery are not illegal because they are so common and even when they are made illegal the practices continue. There are tribes that literally practice human sacrifice and cannibalism, still, in this world. These are their cultural values! That means borders, and if you don't allow borders on the outside of a country then they develop themselves on the inside of a country. Look at the USA, they have gated communities because there exist predominately minority group areas with high crime rates. A border is basically a filter for people. If you are saying this is immoral you need to explain why castle walls and border patrols are a recurrent feature of humankind since forever. The borders are literally in the landscape around us in Europe. This is something that goes way deep and it won't be shifted by waving your hands philosophically.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  > These are their cultural values! There are horrible cultures in the world; I agree. > That means borders NOPE This merely traps people where these bad cultures are, and this in my mind is the great immorality. You cannot tell a person "you live in a failed place, but you stuck there forever in poverty, and because of the luck of where I am born, I am entitled to greater things." You allow for a free movement of people, you will perhaps see a transient spreading of some worse cultures, but in a free marketplace of ideas, they will not remain ascendent-- barbarities and oppression simply aren't very effective. Loss-aversion is no way to build a community. > and if you don't allow borders on the outside of a country then they develop themselves on the inside of a country. Look at the USA, they have gated communities because there exist predominately minority group areas with high crime rates. Very true, which is why Georgists pull for a Land Value Tax, which would do much to end this segregation.