6 ms·

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away fr

by fixxer 10y ago

The author: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huemer Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl... I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism. Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit? I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!). In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.

nyrulez 10y ago
I agree. It reminds me of the quote "Civilization is built on what men give back to the society, not what they require from the society." While I know it can improve standards of living for a ton of people if they were allowed to immigrate out of their current situation, it also means the benefit may only be one sided and not to the society receiving them. The author fails to sufficiently argue this part. In that sense, having some sort of merit and cultural compatibility system makes sense. Without it, original society can lose it's identity and could also devolve into an irreversible mess.
- pimmen89 10y ago
  The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into? Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
BeetleB 10y ago
>Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. Based on this: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/ http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings... The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries. Likely a larger percentage of local non-Muslim Americans want to ban homosexuality than do immigrants to the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if in the US, immigrants are more open to homosexuality than US citizens.
- fixxer 10y ago
  I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.
  - ciaranm 10y ago
    Everyone has political motivations. You're going to entirely discount a group that studies migration from the most esteemed university in the UK because you don't like what someone puts on their twitter feed?
    - fixxer 10y ago
      Yep. It suggests bias in the methods used to collect and publish data. This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.
      - ciaranm 10y ago
        Who do you know who's genuinely not political? People have biases all over the place. They're not going to disappear - understand them, acknowledge them, interpret them. Don't just shrug your shoulders and say "nah I don't like that". They're not publishing opinion pieces - it's research.
verbify 10y ago
That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9 http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9 But also consider this: a) Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time b) By stopping people from immigrating, you're just keeping homophobia away from you, you're not preventing it existing. A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.
- fixxer 10y ago
  NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others, which is really just jingoism. Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)
  - mozumder 10y ago
    Economics is rationalism. Literally. And economics has no concern about the well-being of any social group. If another social group creates more wealth than yours do via immigration, guess what? Your social group dies. If a bunch of marauding dark-skinned anti-gay Muslims practicing Sharia law creates more wealth than sweet, huggable white libertarians with flowers in their hands, guess who's going to dominate? There's no faking it in economics. Adapt or die. And white nationalists are going to learn the hard way that immigrants are what creates wealth in this country, since they work hard and have a lower crime rate than natives.
mozumder 10y ago
> Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as domestic violence causing death among people that stray away from their family. And what good are laws against murder if the government doesn't enforce it, like the current US Attorney General is doing? But, it doesn't matter since immigration isn't designed to influence culture. The US government isn't a Cultural Government. We don't even have a national language. Pretty cool, huh? Immigrations instead is used to maintain economic welfare, as immigrants work harder than natives and have a lower crime rate. Otherwise, you have a stagnant economy like Japan. You have plenty of other options to control culture besides immigration. Learn how to make a TV show, or speak in public. So, the correct answer to everything is to make sure we have an open border. Let's work to make sure that happens.
- classicsnoot 10y ago
  I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag. I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew. Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Don't forget that California is just on loan from Mexico. ;)
    - mozumder 10y ago
      And that guns make people safer.
  - mozumder 10y ago
fiatjaf 10y ago
Although the author is a libertarian, I don't think his views express what libertarians in general think about it. Libertarians recognize property rights and that property owners should be able to prevent people from "immigrating" to their property. In practice that could materialize in a number of different laws and costumes, depending on the culture and society. How that should work in the context of State regulation is a problem for which libertarianism has no solution.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Libertarians also have a lot of internal divisions. Noam Chomsky, for example, is a "libertarian socialist" and gets along as well with the Cato Institute as a Trump supporter at a BLM rally.

by fixxer 10y ago

nyrulez 10y ago

I agree. It reminds me of the quote "Civilization is built on what men give back to the society, not what they require from the society." While I know it can improve standards of living for a ton of people if they were allowed to immigrate out of their current situation, it also means the benefit may only be one sided and not to the society receiving them. The author fails to sufficiently argue this part. In that sense, having some sort of merit and cultural compatibility system makes sense. Without it, original society can lose it's identity and could also devolve into an irreversible mess.

pimmen89 10y ago
The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into? Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

BeetleB 10y ago

>Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. Based on this: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/ http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings... The majority of immigrants are likely non-Muslims. Only two Muslim countries appear in the top 10. Of the top 44% of immigrants, 8% are from two Muslim countries. Likely a larger percentage of local non-Muslim Americans want to ban homosexuality than do immigrants to the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if in the US, immigrants are more open to homosexuality than US citizens.

fixxer 10y ago
I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.
- ciaranm 10y ago
  Everyone has political motivations. You're going to entirely discount a group that studies migration from the most esteemed university in the UK because you don't like what someone puts on their twitter feed?
  - fixxer 10y ago
    Yep. It suggests bias in the methods used to collect and publish data. This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.
    - ciaranm 10y ago
      Who do you know who's genuinely not political? People have biases all over the place. They're not going to disappear - understand them, acknowledge them, interpret them. Don't just shrug your shoulders and say "nah I don't like that". They're not publishing opinion pieces - it's research.

verbify 10y ago

That poll only surveyed areas where at least a fifth of the population was Muslim. From my experience growing up as an Orthodox Jew, areas with a higher concentration of an ethnicity also tend to harbour the more extreme views. Whether that's because extremists tend to only want to hang out together or because hanging out with only your own kind makes you more extreme is irrelevant - that poll isn't an accurate reflection Of British Muslim views or any of the British Muslims I work with. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9 http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9 But also consider this: a) Immigrants tend to adopt the mainstream culture over time b) By stopping people from immigrating, you're just keeping homophobia away from you, you're not preventing it existing. A gay child Of Muslim parents is better off in the UK than Pakistan even if his parents are going to continue to be homophobic. I'm not a fan OF NIMBYism.

fixxer 10y ago
NIMBYism is rationalism. It is irrational to think you can/should have policies in your system to serve people from a separate system. It presumes that you can establish a metric for right and wrong that applies to others, which is really just jingoism. Edit: wrt your 'A', there is a massive amount of things not said about how immigrants take on the values of their new country. Cato has published a few papers on that and it is always in the context of large aggregate stats dominated by immigrants from similar cultures (some might disagree, but Mexico is VERY similar to the US; Syria not so much)
- mozumder 10y ago
  Economics is rationalism. Literally. And economics has no concern about the well-being of any social group. If another social group creates more wealth than yours do via immigration, guess what? Your social group dies. If a bunch of marauding dark-skinned anti-gay Muslims practicing Sharia law creates more wealth than sweet, huggable white libertarians with flowers in their hands, guess who's going to dominate? There's no faking it in economics. Adapt or die. And white nationalists are going to learn the hard way that immigrants are what creates wealth in this country, since they work hard and have a lower crime rate than natives.

mozumder 10y ago

> Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality. We have that in the US already, with the evangelists trying to do the exact same thing - strict religious laws and anti-homosexuality. Lots of gays/transgendered people being killed in the US, as well as domestic violence causing death among people that stray away from their family. And what good are laws against murder if the government doesn't enforce it, like the current US Attorney General is doing? But, it doesn't matter since immigration isn't designed to influence culture. The US government isn't a Cultural Government. We don't even have a national language. Pretty cool, huh? Immigrations instead is used to maintain economic welfare, as immigrants work harder than natives and have a lower crime rate. Otherwise, you have a stagnant economy like Japan. You have plenty of other options to control culture besides immigration. Learn how to make a TV show, or speak in public. So, the correct answer to everything is to make sure we have an open border. Let's work to make sure that happens.

classicsnoot 10y ago
I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag. I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew. Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.
- fixxer 10y ago
  Don't forget that California is just on loan from Mexico. ;)
  - mozumder 10y ago
    And that guns make people safer.
- mozumder 10y ago

fiatjaf 10y ago

Although the author is a libertarian, I don't think his views express what libertarians in general think about it. Libertarians recognize property rights and that property owners should be able to prevent people from "immigrating" to their property. In practice that could materialize in a number of different laws and costumes, depending on the culture and society. How that should work in the context of State regulation is a problem for which libertarianism has no solution.

fixxer 10y ago
Libertarians also have a lot of internal divisions. Noam Chomsky, for example, is a "libertarian socialist" and gets along as well with the Cato Institute as a Trump supporter at a BLM rally.