2 ms·

Are communities based on circumstances of birth more important than those based on personal choices? If you can choose your religion and profession, why not als

Are communities based on circumstances of birth more important than those based on personal choices? If you can choose your religion and profession, why not also citizenship? Of course there can be reasonable requirements, but it's clear how an individualist and a collectivist would answer.

like_any_other 2y ago
Communities based on identity are more important for long-term survival, yes. Just 200 years ago the politics and ideologies of most nations were completely alien to what they are today. Only their people remain. A country based on "ideas" or "values" is also tyrannical - if people born there espouse different values, do they lose citizenship and get exiled, replaced by a foreigner that mouths the right platitudes?
- jltsiren 2y ago
  But is it a chosen identity or an identity imposed by circumstances of birth? In any case, focusing on identity leads to identity politics and (at least anecdotally) bad outcomes. I believe that countries should be based on citizenship without any assumptions of shared identity, values, or culture. There will always be citizens who don't fit in, no matter which policies the country chooses to pursue. But with reasonably free immigration, those people could at least try their luck elsewhere.
- verdverm 2y ago
  The US has changed drastically in the last 200 years, in large part from the contributions of immigrants. The US has been a country of immigration for most of its history. We were taught (in the 90s) that it is the melting pot of the world and that is part of what made us great
jqpabc123 2y ago
"... it's clear how an individualist and a collectivist would answer." It should be clear that most countries and individuals are not strictly individualist or collectivist --- they're some combination of both. Casting it as a strictly black or white choice is not reflective of reality.

like_any_other 2y ago

Communities based on identity are more important for long-term survival, yes. Just 200 years ago the politics and ideologies of most nations were completely alien to what they are today. Only their people remain. A country based on "ideas" or "values" is also tyrannical - if people born there espouse different values, do they lose citizenship and get exiled, replaced by a foreigner that mouths the right platitudes?

jltsiren 2y ago
But is it a chosen identity or an identity imposed by circumstances of birth? In any case, focusing on identity leads to identity politics and (at least anecdotally) bad outcomes. I believe that countries should be based on citizenship without any assumptions of shared identity, values, or culture. There will always be citizens who don't fit in, no matter which policies the country chooses to pursue. But with reasonably free immigration, those people could at least try their luck elsewhere.
verdverm 2y ago
The US has changed drastically in the last 200 years, in large part from the contributions of immigrants. The US has been a country of immigration for most of its history. We were taught (in the 90s) that it is the melting pot of the world and that is part of what made us great

jqpabc123 2y ago

"... it's clear how an individualist and a collectivist would answer." It should be clear that most countries and individuals are not strictly individualist or collectivist --- they're some combination of both. Casting it as a strictly black or white choice is not reflective of reality.