3 ms·

Regarding the right to refuse anyone, I was of the same opinion myself but mostly changed my mind after reading this article posted on HN: http://www.owl232.ne

Regarding the right to refuse anyone, I was of the same opinion myself but mostly changed my mind after reading this article posted on HN: http://www.owl232.net/papers/immigration.htm http://www.owl232.net/papers/immigration.htm I now find this to be a very interesting and subtle ethical question

rukittenme 8y ago
Really? What aspect of his argument convinced you?
lrajlich 8y ago
what's the tl;dr? I only read the primae facie rights section and 1) this is reasoning by analogy, 2) the analogies don't make sense..
raverbashing 8y ago
I don't buy it. Because it focuses too much on "supposed" rights of the immigrant and not the rights of the one already there (which, as much as the "no borders" people deny that more crimes and bad stuff happens with unchecked migration, it does happen).
everybodyknows 8y ago
The essay is missing a couple of sections: 3.6 Social Peace When large swathes of the work force suffer falling income sure to competition from immigrants, anger will rise to dangerous levels. 3.7 Maintenance of Social Capacity for Self-Governance Rule of law through government institutions, rather than by an elite of cronies through hired thugs, is possible only under certain conditions. Foremost of these being: 1) Engagement of citizens in government, going beyond the minimum of showing up at a polling booth every four years, and 2) Sufficient education to understand what's being voted upon. Though both of these are questions of degree rather than Boolean propositions, both nevertheless remain requirements of existential gravity for any free society. The election of 2016 shows just how imperiled 3.6 and 3.7 have become here in the United States. The author, writing back in 2010, lacked the 2016 evidence.
thomasahle 8y ago
David Miller also had an interesting episode on Philosophy bites on the issue: https://philosophybites.com/2016/11/david-miller-on-immigration.html https://philosophybites.com/2016/11/david-miller-on-immigrat...

rukittenme 8y ago

Really? What aspect of his argument convinced you?

lrajlich 8y ago

what's the tl;dr? I only read the primae facie rights section and 1) this is reasoning by analogy, 2) the analogies don't make sense..

raverbashing 8y ago

I don't buy it. Because it focuses too much on "supposed" rights of the immigrant and not the rights of the one already there (which, as much as the "no borders" people deny that more crimes and bad stuff happens with unchecked migration, it does happen).

everybodyknows 8y ago

The essay is missing a couple of sections: 3.6 Social Peace When large swathes of the work force suffer falling income sure to competition from immigrants, anger will rise to dangerous levels. 3.7 Maintenance of Social Capacity for Self-Governance Rule of law through government institutions, rather than by an elite of cronies through hired thugs, is possible only under certain conditions. Foremost of these being: 1) Engagement of citizens in government, going beyond the minimum of showing up at a polling booth every four years, and 2) Sufficient education to understand what's being voted upon. Though both of these are questions of degree rather than Boolean propositions, both nevertheless remain requirements of existential gravity for any free society. The election of 2016 shows just how imperiled 3.6 and 3.7 have become here in the United States. The author, writing back in 2010, lacked the 2016 evidence.

thomasahle 8y ago

David Miller also had an interesting episode on Philosophy bites on the issue: https://philosophybites.com/2016/11/david-miller-on-immigration.html https://philosophybites.com/2016/11/david-miller-on-immigrat...