3 ms·

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

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.
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    > 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. I agree more with the concept that strong borders are the prelude to war. To quote H.G. Wells: > It was just this dignity of government which the crude Darwinism and the Kiplingism of the later Victorian years were destroying. Competition and survival were accepted as the basal facts of life. “War is the natural state of nations,” said a popular London men’s weekly the other day, with an air of repeating something universally known. “Peace is only the interval of rest and preparation between wars.” In accordance with such ideas the growing boy was exhorted to be “loyal” to his school and contemptuous of other schools, “loyal” to his class against other classes, “loyal” to his nation and contemptuous and fierce towards other nations, “loyal” to the English-speaking peoples and contemptuous and hostile to the German or French-speaking. His instinct for brotherhood was narrowed and debased. The universal brotherhood of mankind was laughed to scorn. All life was bickering, he was taught; and yet the whole course of history has shown that the bickering nations perish, and that the alliances and coalescences of peoples and nations ensure the life they comprehend.

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.
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  > 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. I agree more with the concept that strong borders are the prelude to war. To quote H.G. Wells: > It was just this dignity of government which the crude Darwinism and the Kiplingism of the later Victorian years were destroying. Competition and survival were accepted as the basal facts of life. “War is the natural state of nations,” said a popular London men’s weekly the other day, with an air of repeating something universally known. “Peace is only the interval of rest and preparation between wars.” In accordance with such ideas the growing boy was exhorted to be “loyal” to his school and contemptuous of other schools, “loyal” to his class against other classes, “loyal” to his nation and contemptuous and fierce towards other nations, “loyal” to the English-speaking peoples and contemptuous and hostile to the German or French-speaking. His instinct for brotherhood was narrowed and debased. The universal brotherhood of mankind was laughed to scorn. All life was bickering, he was taught; and yet the whole course of history has shown that the bickering nations perish, and that the alliances and coalescences of peoples and nations ensure the life they comprehend.