4 ms·

Huh? Now it's virtue signaling to say that people from other countries deserve the same opportunities as people from my country? Of course I don't deny persona

by baddox 9y ago

Huh? Now it's virtue signaling to say that people from other countries deserve the same opportunities as people from my country? Of course I don't deny personally valuing my family and friends more than strangers, but that doesn't mean I think they fundamentally are more deserving of jobs than strangers. I would personally help a friend get a job before I would help a stranger, but I still think that Americans are no more deserving of jobs than non-Americans, and I don't believe that is a contradiction. Edit: I also don't think we should be under a one-world government, and I don't see how that follows.

laretluval 9y ago
The argument is that if the American government doesn't enact policies that protect and favor Americans, but rather enacts policies that equally protect and favor everyone in the world, then it is effectively acting as a world government or an international charity.
- baddox 9y ago
  Well, we're talking specifically about the USA's own policies for immigrants entering the USA and working. I have different opinions if we're talking about military and foreign policy.
nql 9y ago
Because over the long run policies adopted by your country should be scoped to help the members of your country. If politicians/corporations can make a decision that harms our young, and then dig us out by saying there should be a fair playing ground with foreigners, then the consequences of those decisions are externalized.
- baddox 9y ago
  > Because over the long run policies adopted by your country should be scoped to help the members of your country. I am fairly convinced that economic protectionism is bad for economic growth, particularly in the long run. And even if I'm a direct beneficiary of a certain protectionist policy, I'd like to think I will oppose it, because it's essentially equivalent to the government taking resources from a non-protected job sector and giving them to the protected job sector.

by baddox 9y ago

laretluval 9y ago

The argument is that if the American government doesn't enact policies that protect and favor Americans, but rather enacts policies that equally protect and favor everyone in the world, then it is effectively acting as a world government or an international charity.

baddox 9y ago
Well, we're talking specifically about the USA's own policies for immigrants entering the USA and working. I have different opinions if we're talking about military and foreign policy.

nql 9y ago

Because over the long run policies adopted by your country should be scoped to help the members of your country. If politicians/corporations can make a decision that harms our young, and then dig us out by saying there should be a fair playing ground with foreigners, then the consequences of those decisions are externalized.

baddox 9y ago
> Because over the long run policies adopted by your country should be scoped to help the members of your country. I am fairly convinced that economic protectionism is bad for economic growth, particularly in the long run. And even if I'm a direct beneficiary of a certain protectionist policy, I'd like to think I will oppose it, because it's essentially equivalent to the government taking resources from a non-protected job sector and giving them to the protected job sector.