6 ms·

In that case, it's not my (an American) job to care for the welfare of any other American. Why bother drawing the empathy line outside my own family? I want che

In that case, it's not my (an American) job to care for the welfare of any other American. Why bother drawing the empathy line outside my own family? I want cheaper access for steel and iPhones, and I don't care if this woman has a job or not; I'll be fine either way. I think that's an awful way to feel about another human, but that's what you're suggesting we do with foreign citizens. Why not, instead, try to build a better society for everyone?

mc32 9y ago
It's how we organize ourselves politically. Yes, mostly we owe allegiance to family. Then the rest of citizens who operate under the same laws and regulations we do. Now, we have to draw the line some place and that tends to be national governments which is where our direct influence ends. While we can empathize with N Koreans, for example, we are not the ones who decided upon their government. They are responsible for their self-determination. When we felt oppression, as a country we fought a war for independence. When we opposed slavery, we fought a civil war. It's a bloody crucible, but you have to forge your own destiny as a nation, unless you're proposing internationalization, which is imperialism by another name.
- closeparen 9y ago
  >It's how we organize ourselves politically. You're trying to re-install economic partitions at the national level which currently aren't there; "that's how we do things" isn't an argument. "How we organize ourselves politically" with respect to economics has been as an integrated global civilization since the mid to late 20th century. If economic partitioning is an unqualified good, why not go much smaller than country scale? If it's not an unqualified good, what makes national borders optimal? Doesn't it seem a little bit suspicious that a country grown over hundreds of years of political wrangling just happens to the mathematically optimal economy size?
  - mc32 9y ago
    Basically we do not have political influence on foreign economies and governments, that's why. If they want to become a territory or protectorate, then, sure, we can share. As it stands, we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve, but it's less sexy to say you support our own poor, functionally illiterate than say you support some people in a country where people made different political and economic decisions.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      >we do not have political influence on foreign economies and governments Through trade (and the threat of trade sanctions) we have enormous influence on foreign governments. The US in aggregate has more leverage over China than (say) Idaho does over California. Why should the citizens of Idaho accept competition from Californians? If it's because CA and ID both roll up into the federal government, then don't we all roll up into the UN? >we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve We do. The welfare state is too weak, we don't do nearly enough redistribution, it's unconscionable that we lack national health insurance, it's unconscionable that we let neighborhood wealth determine school quality and make college cost so much, etc. But raising the price of goods by locking out foreign competition is regressive: the made-in-America premium hurts most when you have the least to spend.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Through congress we have great influence on ID via fed laws. We have a very predictable political and economic system. We can enforce contracts, etc., very ably within our political borders. Japan would speak to your position otherwise. Some people say it's foolhardy for them to have expensive fruit and vegetables, when they could import cheaper. On the other hand those farmers are self sustaining within their system. I'm with Seattle anti WTO spirit of '99.
        closeparen 9y ago
        Who is "we"? Idaho can only make laws binding on Californians if it's in concert with other states. Just as the United States can control just about any country it trades with if it's in concert with other UN/WTO members.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > what makes national borders optimal? That's where democratic influence stops, beyond which we can't control. Before globalization became a thing, workers commonly had a union, bargaining rights, and a political wing that fought for them. Now that we've entered a global economy, we can't get that leverage anymore.
nine_k 9y ago
If you think you have unfairly much resources, you can always donate some! There are excellent charities that operate in worse-off countries.
- veridies 9y ago
  I do, frequently. Are you arguing that all taxation is theft, or are you arguing that it's okay to tax us as long as it's for what you want and not for what I want?

mc32 9y ago

It's how we organize ourselves politically. Yes, mostly we owe allegiance to family. Then the rest of citizens who operate under the same laws and regulations we do. Now, we have to draw the line some place and that tends to be national governments which is where our direct influence ends. While we can empathize with N Koreans, for example, we are not the ones who decided upon their government. They are responsible for their self-determination. When we felt oppression, as a country we fought a war for independence. When we opposed slavery, we fought a civil war. It's a bloody crucible, but you have to forge your own destiny as a nation, unless you're proposing internationalization, which is imperialism by another name.

closeparen 9y ago
>It's how we organize ourselves politically. You're trying to re-install economic partitions at the national level which currently aren't there; "that's how we do things" isn't an argument. "How we organize ourselves politically" with respect to economics has been as an integrated global civilization since the mid to late 20th century. If economic partitioning is an unqualified good, why not go much smaller than country scale? If it's not an unqualified good, what makes national borders optimal? Doesn't it seem a little bit suspicious that a country grown over hundreds of years of political wrangling just happens to the mathematically optimal economy size?
- mc32 9y ago
  Basically we do not have political influence on foreign economies and governments, that's why. If they want to become a territory or protectorate, then, sure, we can share. As it stands, we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve, but it's less sexy to say you support our own poor, functionally illiterate than say you support some people in a country where people made different political and economic decisions.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    >we do not have political influence on foreign economies and governments Through trade (and the threat of trade sanctions) we have enormous influence on foreign governments. The US in aggregate has more leverage over China than (say) Idaho does over California. Why should the citizens of Idaho accept competition from Californians? If it's because CA and ID both roll up into the federal government, then don't we all roll up into the UN? >we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve We do. The welfare state is too weak, we don't do nearly enough redistribution, it's unconscionable that we lack national health insurance, it's unconscionable that we let neighborhood wealth determine school quality and make college cost so much, etc. But raising the price of goods by locking out foreign competition is regressive: the made-in-America premium hurts most when you have the least to spend.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Through congress we have great influence on ID via fed laws. We have a very predictable political and economic system. We can enforce contracts, etc., very ably within our political borders. Japan would speak to your position otherwise. Some people say it's foolhardy for them to have expensive fruit and vegetables, when they could import cheaper. On the other hand those farmers are self sustaining within their system. I'm with Seattle anti WTO spirit of '99.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        Who is "we"? Idaho can only make laws binding on Californians if it's in concert with other states. Just as the United States can control just about any country it trades with if it's in concert with other UN/WTO members.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > what makes national borders optimal? That's where democratic influence stops, beyond which we can't control. Before globalization became a thing, workers commonly had a union, bargaining rights, and a political wing that fought for them. Now that we've entered a global economy, we can't get that leverage anymore.

nine_k 9y ago

If you think you have unfairly much resources, you can always donate some! There are excellent charities that operate in worse-off countries.

veridies 9y ago
I do, frequently. Are you arguing that all taxation is theft, or are you arguing that it's okay to tax us as long as it's for what you want and not for what I want?