3 ms·

Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. > That said, it's

Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. > That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree. This kind of comment does not belong here.

mistermann 4y ago
> Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade to the point that it would be advantageous for them to immigrate to one of the countries whose citizens would benefit from open borders?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It works fine in Europe. The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. > Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? No, I'm not presuming, I'm saying that's what is in everyone's interests to advocate for. > And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade The point is to help people, which is not free. Anyway, you should think about what makes such degradation possible in the first place. If things would be more equal otherwise, then clearly borders are exploitative in the first place. In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. It'd be a free market of location.
  - anamax 4y ago
    > The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. Are immigrants fungible? If not, then why is it wrong to discriminate? > In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. Which is down for some people. "If everyone can't have it, then no one can" is pretty much a guarantee of slower progress. (You can't start with VWs for everyone.)
  - mistermann 4y ago
    >> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? > The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It is true that immigration has some positive benefits in many cases, but this does not necessarily (which was in the question) demonstrate that it is net beneficial. > It works fine in Europe. Can you put "fine" in quantitative terms? How did you measure this? How did you measure it against the counterfactual? > The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. It's fine to hold an opinion or belief that "that's what's really in everyone's interest", but there is an important difference between belief and knowledge.
anamax 4y ago
>> That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree. > This kind of comment does not belong here. It's okay to call people racist and stupid but what I said is inappropriate? As to "end up in the same situation", how will a typical US poor person end up in Guatemala "at any time"?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > As to "end up in the same situation", how will a typical US poor person end up in Guatemala "at any time"? War, climate change, economic collapse, etc. Black swans happen. All empires collapse.
  - anamax 4y ago
    If those things happen, Guatemala will not be better off than "poor in the US". More to the point, those are unlikely possibilities (in a given lifetime), while the negative effects of unlimited immigration on US poor are pretty much guaranteed.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      You chose the dumbest place to migrate to. The point is you'd be able to move to wherever is good if the world were free. > while the negative effects of unlimited immigration on US poor are pretty much guaranteed. > More to the point, those are unlikely possibilities (in a given lifetime), There are no probabilities, small or large, for black swan events. That's the point. Most of the things I listed though are inevitable though, so the unpredictability is more about when than if. You keep saying this like it's a fact but there's an entire continent as a counterexample and a lot of research on the benefits.
      - anamax 4y ago
        > The point is you'd be able to move to wherever is good if the world were free. Which pretty much guarantees that said "wherever is good" ceases to be good. > There are no probabilities, small or large, for black swan events. That's the point. Actually, there are. The probability of a black swan event is unknown in some sense, but we do know one of the bounds. Or rather, we do know something about how often they occur. We may under-estimate, but the fact that it hasn't happened often enough for us to have good bounds is, in itself, information about "how often". But, let's run the experiment. Let Europe take in everyone who wants in and we'll see how things work out in a couple of decades. If you're right, Europe will finally be able break free of US hegemony. If I'm right,...

mistermann 4y ago

> Or, because they're too stupid to realize it's in their own self-interest because they could end up in the exact same situation at any time. How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade to the point that it would be advantageous for them to immigrate to one of the countries whose citizens would benefit from open borders?

guerrilla 4y ago
> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It works fine in Europe. The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. > Are you presuming that if Country A opens its borders, all other countries will? No, I'm not presuming, I'm saying that's what is in everyone's interests to advocate for. > And, considering first world countries and the countries from which people who would benefit from borders being open, is it likely that conditions in the first world countries will degrade The point is to help people, which is not free. Anyway, you should think about what makes such degradation possible in the first place. If things would be more equal otherwise, then clearly borders are exploitative in the first place. In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. It'd be a free market of location.
- anamax 4y ago
  > The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. Are immigrants fungible? If not, then why is it wrong to discriminate? > In any case, everything would reach an equilibrium in the end. Which is down for some people. "If everyone can't have it, then no one can" is pretty much a guarantee of slower progress. (You can't start with VWs for everyone.)
- mistermann 4y ago
  >> How would open borders in a country be necessarily beneficial to people in the country? > The benefits of immigration have been addressed many places. It is true that immigration has some positive benefits in many cases, but this does not necessarily (which was in the question) demonstrate that it is net beneficial. > It works fine in Europe. Can you put "fine" in quantitative terms? How did you measure this? How did you measure it against the counterfactual? > The point is not to open only one countries borders though, but all of them, because that's what's really in everyone's interest. It's fine to hold an opinion or belief that "that's what's really in everyone's interest", but there is an important difference between belief and knowledge.

anamax 4y ago

>> That said, it's important in any moral discussion to attribute immorality to someone with whom you disagree. > This kind of comment does not belong here. It's okay to call people racist and stupid but what I said is inappropriate? As to "end up in the same situation", how will a typical US poor person end up in Guatemala "at any time"?

guerrilla 4y ago
> As to "end up in the same situation", how will a typical US poor person end up in Guatemala "at any time"? War, climate change, economic collapse, etc. Black swans happen. All empires collapse.
- anamax 4y ago
  If those things happen, Guatemala will not be better off than "poor in the US". More to the point, those are unlikely possibilities (in a given lifetime), while the negative effects of unlimited immigration on US poor are pretty much guaranteed.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    You chose the dumbest place to migrate to. The point is you'd be able to move to wherever is good if the world were free. > while the negative effects of unlimited immigration on US poor are pretty much guaranteed. > More to the point, those are unlikely possibilities (in a given lifetime), There are no probabilities, small or large, for black swan events. That's the point. Most of the things I listed though are inevitable though, so the unpredictability is more about when than if. You keep saying this like it's a fact but there's an entire continent as a counterexample and a lot of research on the benefits.
    - anamax 4y ago
      > The point is you'd be able to move to wherever is good if the world were free. Which pretty much guarantees that said "wherever is good" ceases to be good. > There are no probabilities, small or large, for black swan events. That's the point. Actually, there are. The probability of a black swan event is unknown in some sense, but we do know one of the bounds. Or rather, we do know something about how often they occur. We may under-estimate, but the fact that it hasn't happened often enough for us to have good bounds is, in itself, information about "how often". But, let's run the experiment. Let Europe take in everyone who wants in and we'll see how things work out in a couple of decades. If you're right, Europe will finally be able break free of US hegemony. If I'm right,...