3 ms·

The GOOD news is that there is no One World Government, so people are able to buy their transfer to another country to better fit their definition of paradise.

Sebb767 5y ago
The BAD news is that there are so many government options that it will be hard to find a country that will fit you perfectly and some countries tend to overreach their borders very far so that you cannot escape their tyranny even if you move. The WORSE news is that even if they're able to find a country that fits them better, they still need to invest a lot of money and time to move (if they get in at all) and leave their family, friends and home behind. Seriously, moving to a different country is hardly an option. In nearly all cases, fighting to keep your country good is your best bet.
- collaborative 5y ago
  Some people are born in societies that overwhelmingly hold opposite views to their own. In these cases, escaping outweighs staying since they have no chance of seeing them change during their lifetimes
  - Sebb767 5y ago
    I specifically didn't say it's never an option - if you don't have anything to hold you back or if your country is no longer livable, escaping might be your only option. My point is, this is more of a very last resort rather than something you just do.
_jal 5y ago
For the vast bulk of people, you may as well suggest they move to a different planet. The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)
- tobmlt 5y ago
  Yep. You’ve found one of the true purposes of immigration law. As with barriers to free competition among employers in the market for employees acting to suppress wages to benefit companies, so with nation states in their control of citizens immigration allowing for higher repression and exploitation of various forms.
  - randompwd 5y ago
    As a native English speaker, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing your comment.
  - vkou 5y ago
    This is an interesting theory, but it falls apart upon contact with reality. The vastly overwhelming majority of immigration barriers in the world keep people out of other countries, not keep people in them. The motivation behind those barriers is, broadly speaking, in keeping out moochers and undesirables, not "Actively helping some country on the other side of the world repress its citizenry." You'll be hard-pressed to find people who support strict immigration controls for the latter reason. You don't have to look hard to find supporters of them for the former reason.
    - tobmlt 5y ago
      You don’t think both reasons have been important? How about the eastern block during the Cold War? I bet my rulers in the USA are happy that the EU makes it difficult for our people to move there. On the other hand I am certain our populace mostly thinks about keeping “the other out” sure. Cannot both things hold on their own time and place, and depending on where the person holding the view sits? Mexico’s ruling class is likely glad for our immigration law, as it keeps their populace pinned in. Economic issues always cut two ways, and the press will stoke emotion about only one of the two, for some reason.
kook_throwaway 5y ago
We might not have a world government on paper, but governments around the world tend to be largely on the same page. Those that aren't following the lead of the world hegemony have an unfortunate tendency to get invaded, have uprisings of dubious origins, or other inconveniences like assassination[1]. Considering how long that list is, I don't think it's unfair to assume there's many more subtle instances where foreign governments decided to cooperate that we don't even know about. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

Sebb767 5y ago

The BAD news is that there are so many government options that it will be hard to find a country that will fit you perfectly and some countries tend to overreach their borders very far so that you cannot escape their tyranny even if you move. The WORSE news is that even if they're able to find a country that fits them better, they still need to invest a lot of money and time to move (if they get in at all) and leave their family, friends and home behind. Seriously, moving to a different country is hardly an option. In nearly all cases, fighting to keep your country good is your best bet.

collaborative 5y ago
Some people are born in societies that overwhelmingly hold opposite views to their own. In these cases, escaping outweighs staying since they have no chance of seeing them change during their lifetimes
- Sebb767 5y ago
  I specifically didn't say it's never an option - if you don't have anything to hold you back or if your country is no longer livable, escaping might be your only option. My point is, this is more of a very last resort rather than something you just do.

_jal 5y ago

For the vast bulk of people, you may as well suggest they move to a different planet. The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)

tobmlt 5y ago
Yep. You’ve found one of the true purposes of immigration law. As with barriers to free competition among employers in the market for employees acting to suppress wages to benefit companies, so with nation states in their control of citizens immigration allowing for higher repression and exploitation of various forms.
- randompwd 5y ago
  As a native English speaker, I'm having a lot of trouble parsing your comment.
- vkou 5y ago
  This is an interesting theory, but it falls apart upon contact with reality. The vastly overwhelming majority of immigration barriers in the world keep people out of other countries, not keep people in them. The motivation behind those barriers is, broadly speaking, in keeping out moochers and undesirables, not "Actively helping some country on the other side of the world repress its citizenry." You'll be hard-pressed to find people who support strict immigration controls for the latter reason. You don't have to look hard to find supporters of them for the former reason.
  - tobmlt 5y ago
    You don’t think both reasons have been important? How about the eastern block during the Cold War? I bet my rulers in the USA are happy that the EU makes it difficult for our people to move there. On the other hand I am certain our populace mostly thinks about keeping “the other out” sure. Cannot both things hold on their own time and place, and depending on where the person holding the view sits? Mexico’s ruling class is likely glad for our immigration law, as it keeps their populace pinned in. Economic issues always cut two ways, and the press will stoke emotion about only one of the two, for some reason.

kook_throwaway 5y ago

We might not have a world government on paper, but governments around the world tend to be largely on the same page. Those that aren't following the lead of the world hegemony have an unfortunate tendency to get invaded, have uprisings of dubious origins, or other inconveniences like assassination[1]. Considering how long that list is, I don't think it's unfair to assume there's many more subtle instances where foreign governments decided to cooperate that we don't even know about. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...