4 ms·

What about your house? I know it's reductio ad absurdum but people can have ideas about who they want living with them, and that's not bigoted or wrong. Is the

What about your house? I know it's reductio ad absurdum but people can have ideas about who they want living with them, and that's not bigoted or wrong. Is their desire less valid than the desire of the person wanting to live wit them? I can't see why it would be. What we can say is that the right to self-determination, that is to have a say in how you are governed, is a fundamental human right. And surely that includes the right to have a country, have borders, and have immigration policies and controls.

iudqnolq 5y ago
Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? I think per your argument I should get to decide you can't come into the state I live in, Colorodo. You have a level of personal ownership of the space you live in that you don't have over the country as a whole. A country is not just a scaled up family.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? A border is a line that has come to be agreed upon by the people on either side of it. And people on either side of those borders have the right to self-determination. You can't logic your way out of the desires of other people and how they choose to be governed.
  - iudqnolq 5y ago
    Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid? The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid? I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders. > The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination). That's not the main argument for my position. If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though, and many more people would consider it immoral than those who consider self-determination (including borders) to be immoral.
      - iudqnolq 5y ago
        > I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders. Sure, if you believe countries have a fundamental right to do whatever they want then you can justify anything a country does. That's not what self-determination means, though. It refers to the right of people to pick their government, but doesn't give that government unlimited power. If it did, it would override every other right. > If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I didn't say whatever they want that's a strawman. I said self-determination which obviously includes administration of borders and immigration. > I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do. Another strawman. I'm saying you believing that other people must live under a society and system of laws that personally satisfy you, and that they are immoral if they feel differently, is authoritarian. Just curious about your ideas of individual liberty. How do you feel about lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports, by the way?
more_corn 5y ago
You have called out your own fallacy and disproven your point. Thank you.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  What point was it that you think I disproved?
34679 5y ago
I think an honest reading of what I wrote would conclude that I was referring to international movement. I could have done a better job by using that qualifier, or replacing "movement" with "migration".
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Why are "international" borders different or special. Aren't borders just lines on a map? Why would someone be morally entitled to control access to their own property, (which is also just lines on a map administered by their government), but not have a moral right to self-determination including administration of any other borders under the control of their government?

iudqnolq 5y ago

Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? I think per your argument I should get to decide you can't come into the state I live in, Colorodo. You have a level of personal ownership of the space you live in that you don't have over the country as a whole. A country is not just a scaled up family.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Why is a national border at all the logical line to draw? A border is a line that has come to be agreed upon by the people on either side of it. And people on either side of those borders have the right to self-determination. You can't logic your way out of the desires of other people and how they choose to be governed.
- iudqnolq 5y ago
  Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid? The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination).
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > Well if everyone agrees to stay on their side of the line refugees wouldn't be an issue. Clearly some people want to walk over the line. Why do you think their wishes are less valid? I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders. > The main argument for your position boils down to "their ancestors had less military power, so they should live less desirable places". You can justify that with some logical systems, but not the one you're using (self-determination). That's not the main argument for my position. If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though, and many more people would consider it immoral than those who consider self-determination (including borders) to be immoral.
    - iudqnolq 5y ago
      > I think that because they want to enter the country of other people who have the fundamental human right to self-determination, i.e., how they are governed, including the administration of their borders. Sure, if you believe countries have a fundamental right to do whatever they want then you can justify anything a country does. That's not what self-determination means, though. It refers to the right of people to pick their government, but doesn't give that government unlimited power. If it did, it would override every other right. > If you don't believe people should have the right to self-determination, or at least that your wishes should override if they are unable to provide a reason that you deem sufficient or "logical" then fine. That's authoritarian though I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I didn't say whatever they want that's a strawman. I said self-determination which obviously includes administration of borders and immigration. > I believe individual rights, including the right to mobility, override the right of a government to do whatever it wants. I'm surprised you've found a definition of authoritarian where it's individuals being authoritarian towards governments that want to tell them what they can do. Another strawman. I'm saying you believing that other people must live under a society and system of laws that personally satisfy you, and that they are immoral if they feel differently, is authoritarian. Just curious about your ideas of individual liberty. How do you feel about lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine passports, by the way?

more_corn 5y ago

You have called out your own fallacy and disproven your point. Thank you.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
What point was it that you think I disproved?

34679 5y ago

I think an honest reading of what I wrote would conclude that I was referring to international movement. I could have done a better job by using that qualifier, or replacing "movement" with "migration".

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Why are "international" borders different or special. Aren't borders just lines on a map? Why would someone be morally entitled to control access to their own property, (which is also just lines on a map administered by their government), but not have a moral right to self-determination including administration of any other borders under the control of their government?