7 ms·

I am, by most metrics, an ardent globalist; I advocate absolute free trade and absolute free movement. However, it's not very hard to recognize that many people

I am, by most metrics, an ardent globalist; I advocate absolute free trade and absolute free movement. However, it's not very hard to recognize that many people's definition of globalism effectively includes such things as forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation.

oh_sigh 10y ago
If 100M people from Africa/ME showed up in Europe, you think this would be a good thing for the world?
- unityByFreedom 10y ago
  Over a long period of time? Why not. America is nearly 100% immigrants.
  - bordercases 10y ago
    Most of them were White Christians for the longest time. Are people of that even temperament that you can't see differences between them?
    - unityByFreedom 10y ago
      Certainly I see differences in people's culture. I don't damn them for it.
      - bordercases 10y ago
        One can move for economic opportunities or cultural opportunities. The two can co-occur but they are different needs. If we're talking about integration of Muslims, the ones who aren't soft on their own beliefs, i.e. not raised in the cosmopolitan West, are likely moving simply for economic opportunity or to avoid danger, not necessarily because they like the West. Given that in most countries that are purely Muslim have reason to resent the West and see their struggle as being in part ideological, as Western materialist culture is antithetical to Islamic theocracy, should we not be a little bit wary? I don't think culture is the only variable, but even if it was, there is still cause for concern.
  - Exofunctor 10y ago
    > Why not. Because Europe is liberal, secular, literate, and (consequently) scientifically, technologically, and economically advanced. Africa is none of those things. Whatever your ideals about equality are, you cannot deny that there is something about Africans, whether it's their cultures or their religions or their DNA or some other factor. (In case you reflexively want to accuse me of racism for that last possible cause, if you'd like I can break out the list of high-quality scientific publications demonstrating that intelligence and certain measurable behaviors have been demonstrated to be strongly heritable and that those genes differ substantially across geographically separated populations.) No matter the cause, Europe can not hope to sustain its preeminence in these matters if it gets blasted full of people who are culturally antithetical to them. You can't hope to have a functioning scientific community if certain ascientific beliefs are legally mandated, for example. The simplest explanation for why America is successful in the exact same way as Europe is that all the people who colonized North America come from Europe, and share whatever European je ne sais quoi is conducive to that success, whether it's cultural, religious, genetic, or any other heritable condition. I'm fairly sure this post will be shocking to you and you'll react angrily to it, but I ask you to just take a moment to consider where you think my argument falls apart factually rather than just automatically labelling it as "colonialist" or "xenophobic" or something and then completely ignoring its contents. The fact of the matter is that Africa really sucks and is really backwards, whereas Europe doesn't and isn't, and when people move somewhere they take a little bit of where they came from with them. Do you really think America would be the same, in any respect, as it is today if it was never settled by Europeans?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      One wonders what it could be about Africans that enabled Europeans to progress so far past them in the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps it's their cultures, or their religions, or their DNA, but something sure painted a bulls-eye on the backs of all those people. The French, the British, the Germans, even --- christ, especially --- the Belgians. We in the US have little trouble acknowledging the legacy of slavery in our country. That happened over a century ago. Rwanda didn't gain independence from Belgium, which engineered the sectarian divisions that produced the Rwandan genocide, until 1961. Apartheid didn't end in South Africa until the nineteen nineties. It takes some kind of --something--- to suggest that the Europeans have something to fear from the Africans.
- Exofunctor 10y ago
  No, which is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. "Free movement", to me, means that you are free to travel wherever you'd like on your own dime. It doesn't mean that you get to show up somewhere and demand citizenship, housing, medical care, or other free stuff. But obviously some people conflate these things.
- chinathrow 10y ago
  Of course it is. We have plenty of space here in Europe. Also, why should borders really matter? Protectionism?
unityByFreedom 10y ago
I get that. There's some give and take, and people view things differently. Previously, we've agreed that having a stable economy is something that's in everyone's best interest. I'm not sure whether or not people still find agreement about that. People on all sides are asking what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country. During the next economic crisis, will we allow another TARP, or will we vote to do nothing and sink into a depression for a few years until we decide to dig ourselves out, possibly allowing an aggressive international power to gain a military edge?
battlebot 10y ago
What you describe is nice, but free movement has to be bi-directional, not just into the west. Thus far, the only side that is living up to those ideals are western nations, to their obvious and ongoing harm. Also, are you aware that globalism eliminates the individual franchise? In other words, there is a very large downside to having an unelected body ruling the world, isn't there? In other words, the end of democracy as we know it. I was once a libertarian and bought into the typical libertarian political positions. Unfortunately, based on observation, I have to revert to the idea that the only way to preserve the unique (and fading) way of life we have in the US is to righteously enforce our political borders and bolster internal democratic representation as opposed to remove that control to a further higher entity.
hwillis 10y ago
>forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation. We have had all of those things for over a century in the US. You don't even have to be a citizen to be able to immigrate to any state in the union from any other state. "Cultural erasure" is even more nonsensical than "cultural appropriation". Overburdening of welfare states has been fine for the entire history of the US. These things made the US the most powerful nation in the world. The EU is less than half the size of the US. The problems you are describing are ridiculous and irrelevant. edit: not to mention, the EU takes in even fewer legal immigrants than the US does, per capita. "Cultural erasure" doesn't mean tearing down maypoles and shit, it just means a kebab place opens up down the street. Who could possibly give a shit about that? NOBODY. except racists, obviously.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  >The EU is less than half the size of the US. The problems you are describing are ridiculous and irrelevant. By what metric?
  - hwillis 10y ago
    By land, obviously. Meaning that immigration is much easier to control if they want to, culture is much more concentrated and therefor much harder to "erase", and that there aren't giant empty rural unprofitable flyover states like there are in the US. Inequality in the US is much greater and has always been much greater than in the EU. The only difference is that in the US nobody gives a shit.
- ericd 10y ago
  The US has never had a welfare state remotely comparable to that of the western European majors. It's one of the reasons we're able to take in immigrants without caring historically, and the more recent increases in our welfare system, which I think are directionally a good thing, have the unfortunate side effect of making it necessary to be more careful about who you let in and how long before they can become a full citizen, with all the entitlements that come with it. The European countries also have much more uniform cultures than the US has ever had, and a vastly longer history and tradition. It's nowhere near as simple as "Who doesn't want more kebabs? Clearly, racists." Europe is not currently well set up structurally or culturally to take in large numbers of people of different cultures.
dang 10y ago
Generic ideological tangents are not interesting in HN's sense. They don't gratify intellectual curiosity. They merely retread the well-trodden, and a few people get hot and bothered while the rest of us yawn. This site is not for the hot and bothered to hijack; therefore we don't want generic ideological discussions on HN. I was going to ask you to stop, but since you went into full-out ideological flamewar later, I'm banning your account instead. Please don't create accounts to do this with. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13915801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13915801 and marked it off-topic.

oh_sigh 10y ago

If 100M people from Africa/ME showed up in Europe, you think this would be a good thing for the world?

unityByFreedom 10y ago
Over a long period of time? Why not. America is nearly 100% immigrants.
- bordercases 10y ago
  Most of them were White Christians for the longest time. Are people of that even temperament that you can't see differences between them?
  - unityByFreedom 10y ago
    Certainly I see differences in people's culture. I don't damn them for it.
    - bordercases 10y ago
      One can move for economic opportunities or cultural opportunities. The two can co-occur but they are different needs. If we're talking about integration of Muslims, the ones who aren't soft on their own beliefs, i.e. not raised in the cosmopolitan West, are likely moving simply for economic opportunity or to avoid danger, not necessarily because they like the West. Given that in most countries that are purely Muslim have reason to resent the West and see their struggle as being in part ideological, as Western materialist culture is antithetical to Islamic theocracy, should we not be a little bit wary? I don't think culture is the only variable, but even if it was, there is still cause for concern.
- Exofunctor 10y ago
  > Why not. Because Europe is liberal, secular, literate, and (consequently) scientifically, technologically, and economically advanced. Africa is none of those things. Whatever your ideals about equality are, you cannot deny that there is something about Africans, whether it's their cultures or their religions or their DNA or some other factor. (In case you reflexively want to accuse me of racism for that last possible cause, if you'd like I can break out the list of high-quality scientific publications demonstrating that intelligence and certain measurable behaviors have been demonstrated to be strongly heritable and that those genes differ substantially across geographically separated populations.) No matter the cause, Europe can not hope to sustain its preeminence in these matters if it gets blasted full of people who are culturally antithetical to them. You can't hope to have a functioning scientific community if certain ascientific beliefs are legally mandated, for example. The simplest explanation for why America is successful in the exact same way as Europe is that all the people who colonized North America come from Europe, and share whatever European je ne sais quoi is conducive to that success, whether it's cultural, religious, genetic, or any other heritable condition. I'm fairly sure this post will be shocking to you and you'll react angrily to it, but I ask you to just take a moment to consider where you think my argument falls apart factually rather than just automatically labelling it as "colonialist" or "xenophobic" or something and then completely ignoring its contents. The fact of the matter is that Africa really sucks and is really backwards, whereas Europe doesn't and isn't, and when people move somewhere they take a little bit of where they came from with them. Do you really think America would be the same, in any respect, as it is today if it was never settled by Europeans?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    One wonders what it could be about Africans that enabled Europeans to progress so far past them in the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps it's their cultures, or their religions, or their DNA, but something sure painted a bulls-eye on the backs of all those people. The French, the British, the Germans, even --- christ, especially --- the Belgians. We in the US have little trouble acknowledging the legacy of slavery in our country. That happened over a century ago. Rwanda didn't gain independence from Belgium, which engineered the sectarian divisions that produced the Rwandan genocide, until 1961. Apartheid didn't end in South Africa until the nineteen nineties. It takes some kind of --something--- to suggest that the Europeans have something to fear from the Africans.
Exofunctor 10y ago
No, which is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. "Free movement", to me, means that you are free to travel wherever you'd like on your own dime. It doesn't mean that you get to show up somewhere and demand citizenship, housing, medical care, or other free stuff. But obviously some people conflate these things.
chinathrow 10y ago
Of course it is. We have plenty of space here in Europe. Also, why should borders really matter? Protectionism?

unityByFreedom 10y ago

I get that. There's some give and take, and people view things differently. Previously, we've agreed that having a stable economy is something that's in everyone's best interest. I'm not sure whether or not people still find agreement about that. People on all sides are asking what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country. During the next economic crisis, will we allow another TARP, or will we vote to do nothing and sink into a depression for a few years until we decide to dig ourselves out, possibly allowing an aggressive international power to gain a military edge?

battlebot 10y ago

What you describe is nice, but free movement has to be bi-directional, not just into the west. Thus far, the only side that is living up to those ideals are western nations, to their obvious and ongoing harm. Also, are you aware that globalism eliminates the individual franchise? In other words, there is a very large downside to having an unelected body ruling the world, isn't there? In other words, the end of democracy as we know it. I was once a libertarian and bought into the typical libertarian political positions. Unfortunately, based on observation, I have to revert to the idea that the only way to preserve the unique (and fading) way of life we have in the US is to righteously enforce our political borders and bolster internal democratic representation as opposed to remove that control to a further higher entity.

hwillis 10y ago

>forced immigration, cultural erasure, and overburdening of welfare states, which are conducive to increased conflict rather than increased cooperation. We have had all of those things for over a century in the US. You don't even have to be a citizen to be able to immigrate to any state in the union from any other state. "Cultural erasure" is even more nonsensical than "cultural appropriation". Overburdening of welfare states has been fine for the entire history of the US. These things made the US the most powerful nation in the world. The EU is less than half the size of the US. The problems you are describing are ridiculous and irrelevant. edit: not to mention, the EU takes in even fewer legal immigrants than the US does, per capita. "Cultural erasure" doesn't mean tearing down maypoles and shit, it just means a kebab place opens up down the street. Who could possibly give a shit about that? NOBODY. except racists, obviously.

24gttghh 10y ago
>The EU is less than half the size of the US. The problems you are describing are ridiculous and irrelevant. By what metric?
- hwillis 10y ago
  By land, obviously. Meaning that immigration is much easier to control if they want to, culture is much more concentrated and therefor much harder to "erase", and that there aren't giant empty rural unprofitable flyover states like there are in the US. Inequality in the US is much greater and has always been much greater than in the EU. The only difference is that in the US nobody gives a shit.
ericd 10y ago
The US has never had a welfare state remotely comparable to that of the western European majors. It's one of the reasons we're able to take in immigrants without caring historically, and the more recent increases in our welfare system, which I think are directionally a good thing, have the unfortunate side effect of making it necessary to be more careful about who you let in and how long before they can become a full citizen, with all the entitlements that come with it. The European countries also have much more uniform cultures than the US has ever had, and a vastly longer history and tradition. It's nowhere near as simple as "Who doesn't want more kebabs? Clearly, racists." Europe is not currently well set up structurally or culturally to take in large numbers of people of different cultures.

dang 10y ago

Generic ideological tangents are not interesting in HN's sense. They don't gratify intellectual curiosity. They merely retread the well-trodden, and a few people get hot and bothered while the rest of us yawn. This site is not for the hot and bothered to hijack; therefore we don't want generic ideological discussions on HN. I was going to ask you to stop, but since you went into full-out ideological flamewar later, I'm banning your account instead. Please don't create accounts to do this with. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13915801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13915801 and marked it off-topic.