4 ms·

I advocate for almost completely open borders, for three reasons, freedom + economic growth + national security. (1) Freedom. Closed borders was actually one o

I advocate for almost completely open borders, for three reasons, freedom + economic growth + national security. (1) Freedom. Closed borders was actually one of the first iterations of technology being used to suppress human freedom. We had open borders for most of human history. Only with the advent of modern nation states (and the associated mind virus of nationalism) and recent technical capabilities have we both been motivated and capable of blocking people from travelling and moving freely. (2) Economic growth. Self-explanatory. Look at where our top founders, or their recent ancestors, come from. The more immigration, the better. (3) In the long-run steady state, geopolitical power comes from population size. China and India surpassing the US economically and militarily is a near inevitability and a matter of time. I'd rather a liberal democracy play the role of world police than an authoritarian regime. But that's only possible with 600 million+ Americans. TLDR, closed borders is a disgusting modern aberration with racist and protectionist motivations that stunts the growth of countries and eliminates the freedoms of humans.

unethical_ban 4y ago
I still think there is merit in Lifeboat Ethics. Our country can only support so many people before it would be overwhelmed by resource scarcity and further overpopulation that burdens other nations. Of course closed borders are protectionist. I don't think that's a bad thing.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  We're nowhere close to the point where that argument would have merit.
  - chimineycricket 4y ago
    Correct, so the right thing to do is make sure we get to that point by having open borders.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Correct, because in doing so you max freedom, growth and power, which you don't want to stunt in order to avoid a made up concern that may or may not happen and can be prevented before it happens if it almost happens. Anyway, the market will tend to equilibrate. If one country hypothetically gets "overpopulated", then the less populated place will become more attractive (although I strongly challenge this, nobody wants to move to rural areas within so-called overpopulated countries -- overpopulation is a myth by anti-freedom conservatives), leading to reverse migration. I'm making practical and utility arguments here but I also simply think noone has the right to prevent someone's freedom of movement unless the stakes are truly dire (infectious disease with high mortality). I believe it's evil for people whose ancestors immigrated (which is everyone, including England, which used to be black inhabited) to then point guns at the border and prevent others from doing so for no reason whatsoever aside from fear and bigotry masquerading as vacuous excuses. The planet is so small, it's a heinous assault of freedom to deprive humans of the freedom to explore and settle around it during our brief existence.
      - unethical_ban 4y ago
        I think there is value in the participants of a society, principally in the governance of a society, being educated and adhering to a certain set of common principles and sharing some level of culture. Due to the lack of a good alternative, we allow anyone born in this country to be a citizen, and to vote at age 18. I wouldn't want random people who don't speak the language nor have any interest in sharing our culture or respect for human rights or democracy to have political power. (See: the importance of public education for a well-run society). So let's say we allow an unlimited number of people in with almost no barrier, who may or may not share our political values or language, to live and work here. Sure, it's happened before in mass immigration movements. What if we said, "You can be here, but you can't vote until you are documented to have lived here for a certain period of time and can pass a citizenship test?" That may work, but I wonder what will happen if we continue to have (as we now do) a two-tiered system ala Starship Troopers; one of citizens and one of "civilians" who do do not have political power. What are the impacts? I am not sure. My core belief is that education and common values are important to a society, and I am concerned that unfettered immigration into this country would risk destroying whatever common culture/language we have over time.
stainablesteel 4y ago
this is a bad take 1. the us had open borders because they could offer land to people coming in, it had economic benefits for everyone involved. nowadays, EVERYONE wants to get in, especially actors with bad intentions, and as was just shown in europe not even five years ago now, open borders are a terrible idea with long lasting consequences. 2. economic growth does not simply derive from a larger population, there's a balance between population size and the economic prosperity of each individual within that population, to tip the scale so absolutely in only one direction completely destroys the scale itself 3. geopolitics are not so black and white. it derives complexities in more areas than just population, and the US does not have a small population, nor do its allies
- hackerlight 4y ago
  There's really no substance to anything you've said here. Just confusion and fears and basic misunderstanding of economics and geopolitics. Please consult any economist or international relations scholar on point 2 or 3.
  - stainablesteel 4y ago
    and what substance is there to open borders, let alone the argument that 'we' (who exactly?) had open borders for most of human history for the past few thousand years, you risked your life by traveling. if someone went around looking for slaves to sell and you found yourself clamped in iron, your life was over

unethical_ban 4y ago

I still think there is merit in Lifeboat Ethics. Our country can only support so many people before it would be overwhelmed by resource scarcity and further overpopulation that burdens other nations. Of course closed borders are protectionist. I don't think that's a bad thing.

hackerlight 4y ago
We're nowhere close to the point where that argument would have merit.
- chimineycricket 4y ago
  Correct, so the right thing to do is make sure we get to that point by having open borders.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Correct, because in doing so you max freedom, growth and power, which you don't want to stunt in order to avoid a made up concern that may or may not happen and can be prevented before it happens if it almost happens. Anyway, the market will tend to equilibrate. If one country hypothetically gets "overpopulated", then the less populated place will become more attractive (although I strongly challenge this, nobody wants to move to rural areas within so-called overpopulated countries -- overpopulation is a myth by anti-freedom conservatives), leading to reverse migration. I'm making practical and utility arguments here but I also simply think noone has the right to prevent someone's freedom of movement unless the stakes are truly dire (infectious disease with high mortality). I believe it's evil for people whose ancestors immigrated (which is everyone, including England, which used to be black inhabited) to then point guns at the border and prevent others from doing so for no reason whatsoever aside from fear and bigotry masquerading as vacuous excuses. The planet is so small, it's a heinous assault of freedom to deprive humans of the freedom to explore and settle around it during our brief existence.
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      I think there is value in the participants of a society, principally in the governance of a society, being educated and adhering to a certain set of common principles and sharing some level of culture. Due to the lack of a good alternative, we allow anyone born in this country to be a citizen, and to vote at age 18. I wouldn't want random people who don't speak the language nor have any interest in sharing our culture or respect for human rights or democracy to have political power. (See: the importance of public education for a well-run society). So let's say we allow an unlimited number of people in with almost no barrier, who may or may not share our political values or language, to live and work here. Sure, it's happened before in mass immigration movements. What if we said, "You can be here, but you can't vote until you are documented to have lived here for a certain period of time and can pass a citizenship test?" That may work, but I wonder what will happen if we continue to have (as we now do) a two-tiered system ala Starship Troopers; one of citizens and one of "civilians" who do do not have political power. What are the impacts? I am not sure. My core belief is that education and common values are important to a society, and I am concerned that unfettered immigration into this country would risk destroying whatever common culture/language we have over time.

stainablesteel 4y ago

this is a bad take 1. the us had open borders because they could offer land to people coming in, it had economic benefits for everyone involved. nowadays, EVERYONE wants to get in, especially actors with bad intentions, and as was just shown in europe not even five years ago now, open borders are a terrible idea with long lasting consequences. 2. economic growth does not simply derive from a larger population, there's a balance between population size and the economic prosperity of each individual within that population, to tip the scale so absolutely in only one direction completely destroys the scale itself 3. geopolitics are not so black and white. it derives complexities in more areas than just population, and the US does not have a small population, nor do its allies

hackerlight 4y ago
There's really no substance to anything you've said here. Just confusion and fears and basic misunderstanding of economics and geopolitics. Please consult any economist or international relations scholar on point 2 or 3.
- stainablesteel 4y ago
  and what substance is there to open borders, let alone the argument that 'we' (who exactly?) had open borders for most of human history for the past few thousand years, you risked your life by traveling. if someone went around looking for slaves to sell and you found yourself clamped in iron, your life was over