4 ms·

I'm not sure I fully understand your POV right, but I hope you're not suggesting that a person born within the confinement of certain national border should hav

I'm not sure I fully understand your POV right, but I hope you're not suggesting that a person born within the confinement of certain national border should have the privilege of being a bigger priority when chosen for work within the same border confinement. That's a bit ridiculous. A Syrian Software Engineer shouldn't have to work 1000x more than an American SE to get a job at Google HQ. Let the deserving be decided by their ability for the job rather than their birthplace. It bothers me how we neglect to work towards a borderless planet. Sure, it wouldn't make sense in terms of economy, politics, and a lot of other things in the beginning, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it and envisioning it, and we even work towards formulating the logistics involved?

RestlessMind 10y ago
If you want to disregard economics, politics and a lot of other things (which is a big assumption, but let's continue with it), lets start with the first principles - why do you advocate borderless planet? Whats so compelling about it?
- Curious42 10y ago
  I'm not disregarding it. I'm suggesting we should be working towards formulating economics, politics and everything else which works out for a borderless planet. In regards to why I advocate it - like I said, the way the system works today, some people have more privilege than the others, and this isn't by choice. We should be trying to bring everyone upto the same datum, not the other way around. While the current visa systems are not the texbook definition of discrimination, we are in some way still limiting people's choices based on the land they were born in. If we're talking first principles, a human should be able to roam wherever he chooses. Of course, this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not advocating for terrorists to be able to make it through wherever they wish, but I'm sure if thought hard enough, we'll be able to come up with a system that ensures that a couple of groups of terrorist, and a few other kinds of knobheads don't pull their entire nations down. But right now, we're working in the opposite direction.
  - alextheparrot 10y ago
    Can you clarify why a human has a right to roam to zones other humans have established for their own safety and prosperity? Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold, which seems to be as strong of an argument as the right to traverse arbitrary zones? From the terrorist portion of your comment, it appears you agree that certain actors can be excluded. If we can exclude people from our tribal zones, then nations have strong logical foundations, as they are simply the manifestation of the ability of tribes to exclude others.
    - Curious42 10y ago
      >Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold They could, but they'd be dating back to the principles that were prevalent when various species of the Homo genus existed. When Sapiens were a threat to the Neanderthals, the Neanderthals a threat to the habilis etc. They were thought of as threats for similar reasons as you mentioned; one being more privileged than the other, which led to an insecurity. A lot of factors such as the geography, and the natural resources that companions the land play a huge factor in the well-being of the society. From what you're suggesting, I get the idea that you want that to remain as a given privilege that should only be cherished by the people who were born around it. That a human born in terrible conditions is a threat to the more affluent, and it's resources and security, solely because the latter was born in a better habitat.This doesn't seem very different to me than the ideologies adopted by the tribes and the cavemen that date back to tens of thousands of years. I hope I'm not coming off too strong with my words. The language is my barrier, and I've been known to go off on a tangent sometimes due to that. I hope you understand.
      - alextheparrot 10y ago
        Can you clarify why, from the third person, such significant privilege that affords such significant benefits would ever so willingly given up? I'm asking you to supply the logic such that we can convince individual members of our tribal states that they should support the movement towards a borderless/nationless world. So far, the argument has been moral (When privileged, you have a moral obligation to elevate those less privileged), though I was hoping for a stronger argument than that.
- return0 10y ago
  i don't think we have convincing evidence to maintain consensus that open borders would be better, neither do we have it about closed borders . On purely theoretical grounds, one could offer Occam's razor as a justification for doing away with borders. Another thing is the free flow of capital. Why can money have open borders but people can't? Anyone who advocates for closed borders should also be in favor of capital flow controls. (Personally i m not pro-open-borders as of yet)
  - RestlessMind 10y ago
    People may prefer capital over humans purely for selfish reasons. Money coming in your region, assuming you have some degree of control over it, usually help the local economy (growth of jobs, wages, assets) unless its already inflated one like SFBA. Humans on the other hand tend to be a mixed bag. Highly talented migrants (whatever definition of talent suits you) should be a boon to your region but same cannot be said about untrained undeveloped masses. For a politician, it would make sense to advocate for easy capital inflows, somewhat controlled capital outflows and highly selective immigration process.
alextheparrot 10y ago
If you consider individual actors as adversarial, it becomes less ridiculous quite quickly. Reframe the question as "Why would I, an American software engineer, give my Syrian competition an easier time?". If I have privilege and a family to raise, it makes sense to exploit that privilege rather than to give it up based on the assertion that my privilege is unfair. Often only the young have the privilege to give up their privilege so easily, because of their lacks of dependents.
- geofft 10y ago
  Do you reject all candidates you interview because they might compete with you to avoid layoffs? One hopes that when you hire a Syrian software engineer, both you and they will benefit. I'd certainly prefer to hire a good Syrian software engineer than a mediocre American one (and a good American one than a mediocre Syrian one, naturally), if we're hiring someone anyway.
  - alextheparrot 10y ago
    I don't believe this was the point I was addressing in response to the grandparent. If two candidates appear where one has a much better skillset, it makes sense (in most frames) to accept the better candidate, I agree. What I was responding to was how there may be no responsibility for the American to renounce his privilege such that the Syrian has an easier time becoming a possible candidate (Both in skill set as well as logistically). Additionally, it may even be irrational for the American to do so if we consider them as adversarial actors (In competition, unlike when recruiting co-workers). Please understand my commentary here is simply in response to the equally extreme logic applied by the grandparent (A world of no nations/borders being optimal) and by no means constitutes my complete opinions on immigration, visas, and the like. We can hopefully elevate the discussion above, allowing immigrants only out of charity, to more rigorous reasons.
    - Curious42 10y ago
      Help me understand why you see the idea of a borderless planet as an 'extreme' logic? I was merely proposing we work towards formulating legalities, economics, security, and other logistics involved such that it benefits the planet — rather than just nations — and consequently makes immigration easier. I never mentioned about Syrian having it easier if the native candidate is more deserving, as you seem to claim I did. A lot of your comment has gone over my head due to it's convolutedness.

RestlessMind 10y ago

If you want to disregard economics, politics and a lot of other things (which is a big assumption, but let's continue with it), lets start with the first principles - why do you advocate borderless planet? Whats so compelling about it?

Curious42 10y ago
I'm not disregarding it. I'm suggesting we should be working towards formulating economics, politics and everything else which works out for a borderless planet. In regards to why I advocate it - like I said, the way the system works today, some people have more privilege than the others, and this isn't by choice. We should be trying to bring everyone upto the same datum, not the other way around. While the current visa systems are not the texbook definition of discrimination, we are in some way still limiting people's choices based on the land they were born in. If we're talking first principles, a human should be able to roam wherever he chooses. Of course, this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not advocating for terrorists to be able to make it through wherever they wish, but I'm sure if thought hard enough, we'll be able to come up with a system that ensures that a couple of groups of terrorist, and a few other kinds of knobheads don't pull their entire nations down. But right now, we're working in the opposite direction.
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  Can you clarify why a human has a right to roam to zones other humans have established for their own safety and prosperity? Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold, which seems to be as strong of an argument as the right to traverse arbitrary zones? From the terrorist portion of your comment, it appears you agree that certain actors can be excluded. If we can exclude people from our tribal zones, then nations have strong logical foundations, as they are simply the manifestation of the ability of tribes to exclude others.
  - Curious42 10y ago
    >Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold They could, but they'd be dating back to the principles that were prevalent when various species of the Homo genus existed. When Sapiens were a threat to the Neanderthals, the Neanderthals a threat to the habilis etc. They were thought of as threats for similar reasons as you mentioned; one being more privileged than the other, which led to an insecurity. A lot of factors such as the geography, and the natural resources that companions the land play a huge factor in the well-being of the society. From what you're suggesting, I get the idea that you want that to remain as a given privilege that should only be cherished by the people who were born around it. That a human born in terrible conditions is a threat to the more affluent, and it's resources and security, solely because the latter was born in a better habitat.This doesn't seem very different to me than the ideologies adopted by the tribes and the cavemen that date back to tens of thousands of years. I hope I'm not coming off too strong with my words. The language is my barrier, and I've been known to go off on a tangent sometimes due to that. I hope you understand.
    - alextheparrot 10y ago
      Can you clarify why, from the third person, such significant privilege that affords such significant benefits would ever so willingly given up? I'm asking you to supply the logic such that we can convince individual members of our tribal states that they should support the movement towards a borderless/nationless world. So far, the argument has been moral (When privileged, you have a moral obligation to elevate those less privileged), though I was hoping for a stronger argument than that.
return0 10y ago
i don't think we have convincing evidence to maintain consensus that open borders would be better, neither do we have it about closed borders . On purely theoretical grounds, one could offer Occam's razor as a justification for doing away with borders. Another thing is the free flow of capital. Why can money have open borders but people can't? Anyone who advocates for closed borders should also be in favor of capital flow controls. (Personally i m not pro-open-borders as of yet)
- RestlessMind 10y ago
  People may prefer capital over humans purely for selfish reasons. Money coming in your region, assuming you have some degree of control over it, usually help the local economy (growth of jobs, wages, assets) unless its already inflated one like SFBA. Humans on the other hand tend to be a mixed bag. Highly talented migrants (whatever definition of talent suits you) should be a boon to your region but same cannot be said about untrained undeveloped masses. For a politician, it would make sense to advocate for easy capital inflows, somewhat controlled capital outflows and highly selective immigration process.

alextheparrot 10y ago

If you consider individual actors as adversarial, it becomes less ridiculous quite quickly. Reframe the question as "Why would I, an American software engineer, give my Syrian competition an easier time?". If I have privilege and a family to raise, it makes sense to exploit that privilege rather than to give it up based on the assertion that my privilege is unfair. Often only the young have the privilege to give up their privilege so easily, because of their lacks of dependents.

geofft 10y ago
Do you reject all candidates you interview because they might compete with you to avoid layoffs? One hopes that when you hire a Syrian software engineer, both you and they will benefit. I'd certainly prefer to hire a good Syrian software engineer than a mediocre American one (and a good American one than a mediocre Syrian one, naturally), if we're hiring someone anyway.
- alextheparrot 10y ago
  I don't believe this was the point I was addressing in response to the grandparent. If two candidates appear where one has a much better skillset, it makes sense (in most frames) to accept the better candidate, I agree. What I was responding to was how there may be no responsibility for the American to renounce his privilege such that the Syrian has an easier time becoming a possible candidate (Both in skill set as well as logistically). Additionally, it may even be irrational for the American to do so if we consider them as adversarial actors (In competition, unlike when recruiting co-workers). Please understand my commentary here is simply in response to the equally extreme logic applied by the grandparent (A world of no nations/borders being optimal) and by no means constitutes my complete opinions on immigration, visas, and the like. We can hopefully elevate the discussion above, allowing immigrants only out of charity, to more rigorous reasons.
  - Curious42 10y ago
    Help me understand why you see the idea of a borderless planet as an 'extreme' logic? I was merely proposing we work towards formulating legalities, economics, security, and other logistics involved such that it benefits the planet — rather than just nations — and consequently makes immigration easier. I never mentioned about Syrian having it easier if the native candidate is more deserving, as you seem to claim I did. A lot of your comment has gone over my head due to it's convolutedness.