3 ms·
State 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"
by mjburgess 4mo ago
State 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 4mo 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 4mo agoStates are not the creations of the enlightment I'll await your grant of medicare to the population of africa
- willmarch 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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.
- willmarch 4mo agoIf the Pareto principle holds naturally, why are you pushing for laws/policies to gate keep access to opportunities and access to wealth to force inequalities? Why do we need to make policies that discriminate against some, while benefiting others? (Isn't that antithetical to free markets and a denial of the Pareto principles' universality/inevitability?) Nobody has discussed dividing the wealth of nations (including me, a rising tide raises all ships), but even if such a thing occurred (distribution of global wealth), it would be a hard case to make to call that "ruinous to all our wealth" (Whose wealth? Ruinous to what groups? What history/science is this view based on? Do more people gain in wealth than lose wealth?) We are a species of ape (and often act like it as can be surmised from the tribalism proudly on display here) but that does not mean we should idolize apes and act as if we are apes in all areas of our existence. Nature is a poor teacher of morality/ethics, which is why we have religious text and ethical treatises on how to act that does not recognize nature as the ultimate source of correct action, or else assault, rape, and murder would be legal (unless you deny those are worthy areas of thought and guidance?). I respect evidence and truths, I do not believe the ideology you're pushing is supported by reality or necessity. I believe your ideology comes from fear of change and worries of scarcity, rather than any logical conclusions from first principles. Here is a truth for you: The world has benefited greatly from the sharing of information and resources across borders (including human resources) and trying to deny hundreds of years of enlightenment progress flies in the face of all available evidence that the world is becoming more prosperous, more wealthy, more open, and providing more opportunities than was afforded by the protection closed nation-states that came before.
- jimbokun 4mo agoRecent Supreme Court decisions are nowhere near your position. They have given the President a lot of leeway to deport non-citizens. If everyone geographically in the country had equal standing, this would not be possible.
- willmarch 4mo agoThe keyword in your comment being "recent". The Supreme Court historically matches my argument (which is all that matters). The recent controversial rulings do not negate that the US has for hundreds of years extended the protections of the US Constitution to all peoples that are on US soil (including non-citizens).
- jimbokun 4mo agoIt was only very recently that the Supreme Court acknowledged the protections of the US Constitution to all the people born here.
- jimbokun 4mo 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.