3 ms·

That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've b

by Arizhel 10y ago

That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. If's not OK to do so if they haven't. However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? >Do realize that by using force to escape one country you'd immediately be illegally emigrating into another. This is wrong. You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. This is a baseless assumption.

jacquesm 10y ago
> That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. > In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. Good. > If's not OK to do so if they haven't. Yes, because that suits you well. Because you only recognize those kinds of hardship that you yourself would want to escape from and ignore those that are actually in play. > However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. No, it isn't. There are some points in common but that's not slavery. > IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? Good question. Ask those who want to build a wall. You do realize that building that wall essentially says: Mexicans, you're on your own, you won't be able to vote with your feet any more, and we will not allow you to come to work in the USA to send money home in order to slowly increase the standard of living South of the border, made worse by American companies being strong-armed into operating North of that same border? > You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. I'm not aware of any of my friends who 'made it' having received prior permission to enter the country they fled to. In fact, without exception they ended up in 'internment camps' after which they were allowed to apply to a number of countries around the world who might want to accept them. Effectively they were in no-mans land. > This is a baseless assumption. No, in fact this is the way it goes. Given that I've actually lived on both sides of such a wall for a while I figure my assumptions are anything but baseless.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >You do realize that building that wall essentially says: Mexicans, you're on your own, you won't be able to vote with your feet any more, and we will not allow you to come to work in the USA to send money home in order to slowly increase the standard of living South of the border, made worse by American companies being strong-armed into operating North of that same border? Please explain what prevents Mexico from improving its standard of living on its own. Mexico is not some kind of slave to America; it's a sovereign nation, in control of its own destiny. It's free to trade with all the other 200+ nations on Earth, or to attempt to negotiate having its people go live there. Why does America get all the blame in your world for Mexico's problems? Who does America get to blame for its problems?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > Please explain what prevents Mexico from improving its standard of living on its own. Nothing whatsoever. Except of course that no country exists 'on its own'. > Mexico is not some kind of slave to America; it's a sovereign nation, in control of its own destiny. No, it's a lot less in control of its own destiny than America, mostly because of America (incidentally, also the biggest consumer in the drug trade). To all intents and purposes Mexico is utterly dependent on what happens on the other side of the border. Of course it is easy to deny that if you choose to do so but it suits quite a few interests in the United States just fine to have a weak and poor country next door. To the point that there have been serious interventions in Mexican internal affairs to keep it that way benefiting (mostly American) foreign strategic and economic interests. > It's free to trade with all the other 200+ nations on Earth, or to attempt to negotiate having its people go live there. To the extent that it is able to do so, it does. > Why does America get all the blame in your world for Mexico's problems? It doesn't. Why do you read it as such? America is to blame only to such an extent that they first establish a whole pile of factories abroad when it suits them and then at the drop of a hat imperils the newly created stability and middle-class in a country next door. That sort of action comes with responsibility. > Who does America get to blame for its problems? With great power comes great responsibility. If you don't want to be seen as responsible do not continuously mess in other countries affairs and when you do realize that you can't withdraw that support overnight.

by Arizhel 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

> That's a really strange and horrible viewpoint you have. > In my world, it's always OK for someone for someone to enter someone else's land/property if they've been given permission. Good. > If's not OK to do so if they haven't. Yes, because that suits you well. Because you only recognize those kinds of hardship that you yourself would want to escape from and ignore those that are actually in play. > However, holding people prisoner is always morally wrong. That's pretty much the definition of slavery. No, it isn't. There are some points in common but that's not slavery. > IMO, it's always OK for people to forcibly leave someone who's enslaving them; the complication is finding someone who will take them in. Assuming they've found such a place, what possible defense can you have for people who want to imprison them? Good question. Ask those who want to build a wall. You do realize that building that wall essentially says: Mexicans, you're on your own, you won't be able to vote with your feet any more, and we will not allow you to come to work in the USA to send money home in order to slowly increase the standard of living South of the border, made worse by American companies being strong-armed into operating North of that same border? > You're assuming the country they're immigrating into hasn't given them permission. I'm not aware of any of my friends who 'made it' having received prior permission to enter the country they fled to. In fact, without exception they ended up in 'internment camps' after which they were allowed to apply to a number of countries around the world who might want to accept them. Effectively they were in no-mans land. > This is a baseless assumption. No, in fact this is the way it goes. Given that I've actually lived on both sides of such a wall for a while I figure my assumptions are anything but baseless.

Arizhel 10y ago
>You do realize that building that wall essentially says: Mexicans, you're on your own, you won't be able to vote with your feet any more, and we will not allow you to come to work in the USA to send money home in order to slowly increase the standard of living South of the border, made worse by American companies being strong-armed into operating North of that same border? Please explain what prevents Mexico from improving its standard of living on its own. Mexico is not some kind of slave to America; it's a sovereign nation, in control of its own destiny. It's free to trade with all the other 200+ nations on Earth, or to attempt to negotiate having its people go live there. Why does America get all the blame in your world for Mexico's problems? Who does America get to blame for its problems?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Please explain what prevents Mexico from improving its standard of living on its own. Nothing whatsoever. Except of course that no country exists 'on its own'. > Mexico is not some kind of slave to America; it's a sovereign nation, in control of its own destiny. No, it's a lot less in control of its own destiny than America, mostly because of America (incidentally, also the biggest consumer in the drug trade). To all intents and purposes Mexico is utterly dependent on what happens on the other side of the border. Of course it is easy to deny that if you choose to do so but it suits quite a few interests in the United States just fine to have a weak and poor country next door. To the point that there have been serious interventions in Mexican internal affairs to keep it that way benefiting (mostly American) foreign strategic and economic interests. > It's free to trade with all the other 200+ nations on Earth, or to attempt to negotiate having its people go live there. To the extent that it is able to do so, it does. > Why does America get all the blame in your world for Mexico's problems? It doesn't. Why do you read it as such? America is to blame only to such an extent that they first establish a whole pile of factories abroad when it suits them and then at the drop of a hat imperils the newly created stability and middle-class in a country next door. That sort of action comes with responsibility. > Who does America get to blame for its problems? With great power comes great responsibility. If you don't want to be seen as responsible do not continuously mess in other countries affairs and when you do realize that you can't withdraw that support overnight.