3 ms·
I think judging any group of individuals as if they are all a single entity (be it through the lens of a particular majority view or a particular race) is discr
by willmarch 3mo ago
I think judging any group of individuals as if they are all a single entity (be it through the lens of a particular majority view or a particular race) is discriminatory to the individual (hence discriminatory overall).
In your example (with made up numbers), if 20% are being denied citizenship and opportunity simply because they once resided in the same geographic region as another 80% (with different views), then that is discriminatory because they are not being viewed as individuals but are guilty by simply existing as part of a larger group that they have no choice over.
This is why we screen individual applicants, view each person as a single human with their own thoughts and needs, and judge everyone as an individual and not as a group; to avoid the wrong of discriminating against entire classes of people.
- mjburgess 3mo agoState policies do not operate in this fashion. See, for example, the reality of importing 1 million people. The existence of a state pressuposes two "classes" of people: citizens and non-citizens. Citizens are those who have lived and died, who have laboured and been taxed, and have made the very state which is constituted by them -- and they are owed, by that state, a society they wish to live in. Non-citizens are everyone else. They are owed very little, at best, not to be killed elsewhere; but certaintly, not even to be aided. Unless you want to divide the wealth of every nation by 8bn and watch all of it disappear. In any case, to non-citizens nothing is owed. Certainly not being carefully scruitnized under a microscope to see if a border agent can detect a lack of cultural or ethical fit. And in any case, such a fit can be determined by citizens themsevles. And polled, overwhelming, citizens of western nations have spoken. And they have seen your dice rolling at the border, and havent appreciated its concequences. THe presumption you have on the consent of your fellow citizens to give what you eblieve is owed to other citizens of other states -- this presumption is extraordinary, obniouxous, and short-lived. And much of your attitue here is shortening it.
- willmarch 3mo agoWhat state policies are you referring to? Laws/rights should apply equally to all people or else they are not really rights (are they?). No, Enlightenment principles come from the idea that rights and laws belong to all people (citizen or otherwise) and the founders believed that to be "self-evident" and "unalienable" to all humans. The US Supreme Court has ruled as such again and again (non-citizens have protections of the US Constitution), and Enlightenment thinkers (and any decent person) would agree. Your entire argument (and everything after) can be ignored because your premise is not just flawed, it is entirely incorrect (false) and goes against any principle of human rights that I'm aware of.
- mjburgess 3mo agoStates are not the creations of the enlightment I'll await your grant of medicare to the population of africa
- willmarch 3mo agoAre you saying the population in Africa should not be provided healthcare? I fail to see your point here. If your argument is economic scarcity, then that can be solved eventually (and should be).
- mjburgess 3mo agoIf citizenship isnt a line between two classes of people to which states owe obligations, then why isnt the USA obligated to pay for the healthcare of everyone in the world? Why does medicare/medicaid end at the US border?
- willmarch 3mo agoBecause we don't live in a perfect world... yet. But we should always be working towards more prosperity for all, greater access to resources/services, more sharing of knowledge/assets, and improving the lives of all people on the planet (not just our preferred groups/tribes). Don't you think?
- mjburgess 3mo agoI think preferential attachment and the Pareto process world that we live in, means, that its in the nature of wealth to accumulate in proportion to wealth. And the only way to make the world rich is to exploit that process effectively. Dividing the wealth of nations between all, even if it could be done, would be ruinous to all our weatlh. We are a species of ape to whom the fruits of our labour acrew in proportion to those fruits. And we operate that way because reality does so. So nature has prepared us well to have familial and ethnic feelings which do well to preserve our wealth, or else, we'd all be ruined. You may well hate that, and hate the world and our species for it. But bankrupsy and fables for children arent state policies.
- jimbokun 3mo agoImmigration in the US remains popular. But it reached a level where voters thought the rate was too high and uncontrolled and wanted more controls.
- jimbokun 3mo agoFar too many progressives support unlimited migration with no screening. Conservatives and Libertarians seem more comfortable talking about treating everyone as an individual.
- willmarch 3mo agoI know of no progressive that supports unlimited immigration with no screenings, that is a right wing talking point based on nothing factual. I do see a lot of people on the right, some conservatives, and some libertarians calling for blanket bans on entire groups of people based on dubious claims and hypotheticals. It's a hard argument to make that banning an entire country from opportunities/immigration is "treating everyone as an individual".
- jimbokun 3mo ago“No person is illegal” is a very popular progressive slogan and lawn sign and if that doesn’t mean unlimited immigration it doesn’t mean anything.