6 ms·

What entities a person born in a nation to is resources more so then someone born outside of that nation? You can’t control where you’re born, why would that b

What entities a person born in a nation to is resources more so then someone born outside of that nation? You can’t control where you’re born, why would that be then used to determine… well, anything about you?

lzooz 4y ago
Birthright. Parents, grandparents, etc. fought for their wealth, freedoms, rights, etc.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  None of which you did anything to earn.
  - lzooz 4y ago
    My ancestors earned it and they chose to give it to their descendance.
    - matai_kolila 4y ago
      Firstly no, they didn’t earn anything on their own, and secondly if they did make that choice it was selfish and not theirs to give away in the first place so their “ownership” here is a mistake on their part to believe they had. You can’t own progress, you can’t own a society, and you definitely can’t own the concept of freedom (can’t believe that isn’t clear).
      - lzooz 4y ago
        Yes they earned their society because they worked on it, no it wasn't a selfish choice because the society was and is theirs, and yes you can own progress, a society, and freedom. Which is why half the world is monkeys flinging feces and some would kill to enter the first world.
        matai_kolila 4y ago
        Uh they didn’t work alone on it, and they left a ton of people out, ripping freedom and progress from their hands without a second thought. Your ancestors were thieves and oppressors, and took things that didn’t belong to them, which means the resulting better society isn’t yours or theirs to give or take. It’s free for whoever comes and helps grow it. Honestly I wish we had some mechanism to cast out the entitled and let in the hopeful. People who believe as you do don’t deserve the gift of a progressive society.
        dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        lzooz 4y ago
        >Your ancestors were thieves and oppressors You are a self-loathing, little person.
        dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        matai_kolila 4y ago
        arbitrary_name 4y ago
        That strikes me as a very unnecessary ad hominem. I personally think their statement has a high likelihood of being valid, at least in part, and only on a probabilistic basis. Your response indicates they hit a nerve.
mikem170 4y ago
People used to be free to go anywhere in the world, up until states commanded enough force to exclude foreigners. Funny though how money is still allowed to go anywhere in the world, while people are trapped in their own countries (for better or worse). Those with money can make more money, taking advantage of labor and other resources that can't move, often to the detriment of labor at home and the environment abroad.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > People used to be free to go anywhere in the world... Except that ~zero prehistoric people had access to the resources / skills / knowledge / etc. to actually travel really long distances. And if they tried moving, at scale, into an already-inhabited area - well, whether or not the people in the destination qualified as a "state", I suspect that pretty universally resulted in violent push-back.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    You don't have to go back to pre-history, passports for individuals didn't exist in the 19th century [0]. People were free to go to other countries whenever they wanted, and they did. There were travelers and migrations all over the place. Many cultures have traditions going back millennia of showing travellers generous hospitality. Merchants activity was often regulated, with passports for commercial activity and other customs controls. But not people. The opposite of today. I acknowledge that there would be concerns like you mention, like violent push-back from the natives, same as there are today. Some peoples are raised in insular cultures, some are welcoming, sometimes migrations cause understandable problems, etc. I don't think the way we do things today is optimal. We've changed things so that money is given more freedom than people. And too many people are taught that foreigners are scary. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-of-the-passport https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-...
ericmcer 4y ago
Why care about my parents or family? They are just people, I don't even like them as much as others. Why can't anyone be part of my family and why can't I jump to another one? Society is a sacred part of what makes human beings human, it is why we are such a successful species. It requires cultural indoctrination and nationalism and things that definitely have an ugly side, but are also important to our function. Your viewpoint basically assumes people have no loyalty, nationalism or responsibility to their society so they can be freely swapped with anybody.
- blep_ 4y ago
  > Why can't anyone be part of my family Because you won't let them. > and why can't I jump to another one? You can. People do sometimes, if their birth family is bad enough. Immigrants are, by definition, people with more loyalty to another country than to the one they were born in. Why deny them that?
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    So if some random person wants to force himself into your family and come live in your home, you'll allow it?
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  Yea, if someone wants to, they can and should be able to freely swap which society they participate in. We are successful as a species because we socialize, and there is no reason to limit that only to people who were born in specific geographic areas; that doesn’t make any sense. It would make a lot more sense to group by shared goals and beliefs, with free movement as your goals and beliefs change. Blind nationalistic loyalty is in no way a requirement for a successful human society.
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    You don't think it is easier to socialize with people with similar upbringings and culture to you? You don't think a group of people indoctrinated into a society from birth are more likely to share goals and beliefs than someone born into a different one? Blind nationalism is bad, but absolutely no responsibility towards the society and the people that raised and support you is a crazy take. You're ideal would only work if we had 0 social programs and people were 100% responsible for providing for themselves and their loved ones, including education.
yowlingcat 4y ago
What entitles you to the resources in your home anymore than someone outside of your home? They can't control that they were born outside of your home, so why should that be used to determine whether they can freely enter your home and make use of your resources or not?
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  This is not the compelling argument you think it is; in this analogy I: * didn't buy my house, I inherited it, * the people I inherited it from stole it from other people who * also still live in the house somehow but just in the not-as-nice parts, and * the house is gigantic and can easily fit literally billions more people without even coming close to exhausting the resources of the house, in fact * bringing more people into the house would in fact substantially increase the house's shared ability to operate and provide for the members of the house. So yeah, if we want to use this analogy in a meaningful way, nothing at all entitles me to my house!
  - yowlingcat 4y ago
    All very compelling. I guess I wonder when you plan on permanently hosting as many refugees inside of your home as is physically possible (say 18 or if we're being charitable 9), how many would that be and when would you plan to start? After all, comrade, I'm sure we both agree that direct action would be a more material form of achieving justice through solidarity than the ultimately petit bourgeoisie activity of internet comment squabbling. Of course, one could be motivated to make such impassioned outpourings by a guilt regarding an ultimately comfortable existence, a fear of lacking virtue, and a thrill of proselytizing the nonbelievers, rather than a compulsion to achieve material socioeconomic outcomes for the postcolonial working class of the world. But I'm sure, dear interlocutor, you are motivated by nothing of the sort, and your intentions are of course, impregnable and wholly pure.
    - matai_kolila 4y ago
      I feel like you ignored the part where I absolutely would house as many refugees as I can in my home, were it as bountiful and spacious as the US is. But it’s not, and I did buy this home with money rather than inherit it through theft, so instead of my home I will continue to vote and donate in ways that return the US to a pre-eugenics immigration policy. This would give those refugees a much fairer chance at their own American dream, the one I was given because my ancestors oppressed and stole from the people who didn’t look like them.
RHSeeger 4y ago
There's nothing innate to the universe that defines things this way. But they, as a society, have defined things that way. They, as a society, worked together to build up the infrastructure and the resources that are on top of that infrastructure. And then, as a society, decided what the rules are to participate in that society. So no, there's no universal law that says "the people born here have the rights of this society"; but the people of that society have decreed it so. It's the same way every other right exists. Property rights don't exist as a law of the universe. Rather, "the people" decided they like the stability of having "permanent" control over things so, as a group, decided to enforce those rights.

lzooz 4y ago

Birthright. Parents, grandparents, etc. fought for their wealth, freedoms, rights, etc.

matai_kolila 4y ago
None of which you did anything to earn.
- lzooz 4y ago
  My ancestors earned it and they chose to give it to their descendance.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    Firstly no, they didn’t earn anything on their own, and secondly if they did make that choice it was selfish and not theirs to give away in the first place so their “ownership” here is a mistake on their part to believe they had. You can’t own progress, you can’t own a society, and you definitely can’t own the concept of freedom (can’t believe that isn’t clear).
    - lzooz 4y ago
      Yes they earned their society because they worked on it, no it wasn't a selfish choice because the society was and is theirs, and yes you can own progress, a society, and freedom. Which is why half the world is monkeys flinging feces and some would kill to enter the first world.
      - matai_kolila 4y ago
        Uh they didn’t work alone on it, and they left a ton of people out, ripping freedom and progress from their hands without a second thought. Your ancestors were thieves and oppressors, and took things that didn’t belong to them, which means the resulting better society isn’t yours or theirs to give or take. It’s free for whoever comes and helps grow it. Honestly I wish we had some mechanism to cast out the entitled and let in the hopeful. People who believe as you do don’t deserve the gift of a progressive society.
        dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        lzooz 4y ago
        >Your ancestors were thieves and oppressors You are a self-loathing, little person.
        dang 4y ago
        We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do that with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        matai_kolila 4y ago
        arbitrary_name 4y ago
        That strikes me as a very unnecessary ad hominem. I personally think their statement has a high likelihood of being valid, at least in part, and only on a probabilistic basis. Your response indicates they hit a nerve.

mikem170 4y ago

People used to be free to go anywhere in the world, up until states commanded enough force to exclude foreigners. Funny though how money is still allowed to go anywhere in the world, while people are trapped in their own countries (for better or worse). Those with money can make more money, taking advantage of labor and other resources that can't move, often to the detriment of labor at home and the environment abroad.

bell-cot 4y ago
> People used to be free to go anywhere in the world... Except that ~zero prehistoric people had access to the resources / skills / knowledge / etc. to actually travel really long distances. And if they tried moving, at scale, into an already-inhabited area - well, whether or not the people in the destination qualified as a "state", I suspect that pretty universally resulted in violent push-back.
- mikem170 4y ago
  You don't have to go back to pre-history, passports for individuals didn't exist in the 19th century [0]. People were free to go to other countries whenever they wanted, and they did. There were travelers and migrations all over the place. Many cultures have traditions going back millennia of showing travellers generous hospitality. Merchants activity was often regulated, with passports for commercial activity and other customs controls. But not people. The opposite of today. I acknowledge that there would be concerns like you mention, like violent push-back from the natives, same as there are today. Some peoples are raised in insular cultures, some are welcoming, sometimes migrations cause understandable problems, etc. I don't think the way we do things today is optimal. We've changed things so that money is given more freedom than people. And too many people are taught that foreigners are scary. [0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-of-the-passport https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/a-history-...

ericmcer 4y ago

Why care about my parents or family? They are just people, I don't even like them as much as others. Why can't anyone be part of my family and why can't I jump to another one? Society is a sacred part of what makes human beings human, it is why we are such a successful species. It requires cultural indoctrination and nationalism and things that definitely have an ugly side, but are also important to our function. Your viewpoint basically assumes people have no loyalty, nationalism or responsibility to their society so they can be freely swapped with anybody.

blep_ 4y ago
> Why can't anyone be part of my family Because you won't let them. > and why can't I jump to another one? You can. People do sometimes, if their birth family is bad enough. Immigrants are, by definition, people with more loyalty to another country than to the one they were born in. Why deny them that?
- midoridensha 4y ago
  So if some random person wants to force himself into your family and come live in your home, you'll allow it?
matai_kolila 4y ago
Yea, if someone wants to, they can and should be able to freely swap which society they participate in. We are successful as a species because we socialize, and there is no reason to limit that only to people who were born in specific geographic areas; that doesn’t make any sense. It would make a lot more sense to group by shared goals and beliefs, with free movement as your goals and beliefs change. Blind nationalistic loyalty is in no way a requirement for a successful human society.
- ericmcer 4y ago
  You don't think it is easier to socialize with people with similar upbringings and culture to you? You don't think a group of people indoctrinated into a society from birth are more likely to share goals and beliefs than someone born into a different one? Blind nationalism is bad, but absolutely no responsibility towards the society and the people that raised and support you is a crazy take. You're ideal would only work if we had 0 social programs and people were 100% responsible for providing for themselves and their loved ones, including education.

yowlingcat 4y ago

What entitles you to the resources in your home anymore than someone outside of your home? They can't control that they were born outside of your home, so why should that be used to determine whether they can freely enter your home and make use of your resources or not?

matai_kolila 4y ago
This is not the compelling argument you think it is; in this analogy I: * didn't buy my house, I inherited it, * the people I inherited it from stole it from other people who * also still live in the house somehow but just in the not-as-nice parts, and * the house is gigantic and can easily fit literally billions more people without even coming close to exhausting the resources of the house, in fact * bringing more people into the house would in fact substantially increase the house's shared ability to operate and provide for the members of the house. So yeah, if we want to use this analogy in a meaningful way, nothing at all entitles me to my house!
- yowlingcat 4y ago
  All very compelling. I guess I wonder when you plan on permanently hosting as many refugees inside of your home as is physically possible (say 18 or if we're being charitable 9), how many would that be and when would you plan to start? After all, comrade, I'm sure we both agree that direct action would be a more material form of achieving justice through solidarity than the ultimately petit bourgeoisie activity of internet comment squabbling. Of course, one could be motivated to make such impassioned outpourings by a guilt regarding an ultimately comfortable existence, a fear of lacking virtue, and a thrill of proselytizing the nonbelievers, rather than a compulsion to achieve material socioeconomic outcomes for the postcolonial working class of the world. But I'm sure, dear interlocutor, you are motivated by nothing of the sort, and your intentions are of course, impregnable and wholly pure.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    I feel like you ignored the part where I absolutely would house as many refugees as I can in my home, were it as bountiful and spacious as the US is. But it’s not, and I did buy this home with money rather than inherit it through theft, so instead of my home I will continue to vote and donate in ways that return the US to a pre-eugenics immigration policy. This would give those refugees a much fairer chance at their own American dream, the one I was given because my ancestors oppressed and stole from the people who didn’t look like them.

RHSeeger 4y ago

There's nothing innate to the universe that defines things this way. But they, as a society, have defined things that way. They, as a society, worked together to build up the infrastructure and the resources that are on top of that infrastructure. And then, as a society, decided what the rules are to participate in that society. So no, there's no universal law that says "the people born here have the rights of this society"; but the people of that society have decreed it so. It's the same way every other right exists. Property rights don't exist as a law of the universe. Rather, "the people" decided they like the stability of having "permanent" control over things so, as a group, decided to enforce those rights.