4 ms·

Not just immigration, seems like travel in general is becoming difficult too. It's a real shame that just when we have the tech and infrastructure to allow peo

Not just immigration, seems like travel in general is becoming difficult too. It's a real shame that just when we have the tech and infrastructure to allow people to travel anywhere in the world within a day, for a single person to be able to explore the entirety of this awesome planet for the first time in human history, that the worst among us have to enforce artificial borders and deny everyone this basic freedom. Travel should be codified as a human right. If someone can support themselves and doesn't harm anybody, what ethical justification does anybody have for denying a person from living where they want?

trgn 2mo ago
> to enforce artificial borders and deny everyone this basic freedom. a very postnational view, humanist in a way, lipsius or erasmus would recognize it. that sort of individuated cosmopolitanism only works for educated men and women with means, who have or have the capacity to self-actualize. not for the masses. the nation is still a cradle to protect and nurture the commonwealth, and given that they took hundreds to sometimes thousands of years to form, i don't think borders are artificial in the least.
- Synaesthesia 2mo ago
  There's no reason why we should worship borders, or the state.
- UncleOxidant 2mo ago
  > that sort of individuated cosmopolitanism only works for educated men and women with means, who have or have the capacity to self-actualize. So because not everyone can afford to travel freely we shouldn't let anyone do that?
- Razengan 2mo ago
  > and given that they took hundreds to sometimes thousands of years to form, i don't think borders are artificial in the least. "Borders" as they are treated today began barely 200 years ago, and only started being enforced so strictly since WW1 and then even worse after WW2. For the vast >95% of human history, if you could walk to somewhere and survive there, you could live there. The real ironic shit is that most of the travel and immigration restrictions of today are instituted by the descendants of people that invaded and occupied the lands of other people :')
  - green_wheel 2mo ago
    > For the vast >95% of human history, if you could walk to somewhere and survive there, you could live there For 95% of human history we were hunter gatherers living in extremely sparsely populated areas.
    - Razengan 2mo ago
      When was the last time you heard of humans going somewhere where other humans weren't already there? How do you think they got there?
green_wheel 2mo ago
People aren't simply interchangeable units of economic output, and when they live together for long periods of time they develop unique and distinct cultures that are dear to them. Letting the entirety of the world into your country without stops is cultural suicide. If you put any a value in preserving culture you will find it ethical to put some limit on immigration. Assimilation is possible but there is a limit to the rate and amount of foreigners a place can absorb before changing significantly.
- Razengan 2mo ago
  > Letting the entirety of the world into your country without stops is cultural suicide. The natives of the Americas, Australia, and the many nations previously colonized by European countries, know that better than any descendants of the colonizers. Did they get to have any say?
  - green_wheel 2mo ago
    Yes that is a great example. You certainly don't want what happened to them happening to you.
    - Razengan 2mo ago
      Yeah that's a great example of hypocrisy
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - green_wheel 2mo ago
        No one actually thinks this is hypocrisy. No one is giving up their houses to Native Americans. They do an land acknowledgement and call it even. Even the most liberal among us don't feel it's necessary to sacrifice any meaningful amount of their own comfort to right some past wrongs.

trgn 2mo ago

> to enforce artificial borders and deny everyone this basic freedom. a very postnational view, humanist in a way, lipsius or erasmus would recognize it. that sort of individuated cosmopolitanism only works for educated men and women with means, who have or have the capacity to self-actualize. not for the masses. the nation is still a cradle to protect and nurture the commonwealth, and given that they took hundreds to sometimes thousands of years to form, i don't think borders are artificial in the least.

Synaesthesia 2mo ago
There's no reason why we should worship borders, or the state.
UncleOxidant 2mo ago
> that sort of individuated cosmopolitanism only works for educated men and women with means, who have or have the capacity to self-actualize. So because not everyone can afford to travel freely we shouldn't let anyone do that?
Razengan 2mo ago
> and given that they took hundreds to sometimes thousands of years to form, i don't think borders are artificial in the least. "Borders" as they are treated today began barely 200 years ago, and only started being enforced so strictly since WW1 and then even worse after WW2. For the vast >95% of human history, if you could walk to somewhere and survive there, you could live there. The real ironic shit is that most of the travel and immigration restrictions of today are instituted by the descendants of people that invaded and occupied the lands of other people :')
- green_wheel 2mo ago
  > For the vast >95% of human history, if you could walk to somewhere and survive there, you could live there For 95% of human history we were hunter gatherers living in extremely sparsely populated areas.
  - Razengan 2mo ago
    When was the last time you heard of humans going somewhere where other humans weren't already there? How do you think they got there?

green_wheel 2mo ago

People aren't simply interchangeable units of economic output, and when they live together for long periods of time they develop unique and distinct cultures that are dear to them. Letting the entirety of the world into your country without stops is cultural suicide. If you put any a value in preserving culture you will find it ethical to put some limit on immigration. Assimilation is possible but there is a limit to the rate and amount of foreigners a place can absorb before changing significantly.

Razengan 2mo ago
> Letting the entirety of the world into your country without stops is cultural suicide. The natives of the Americas, Australia, and the many nations previously colonized by European countries, know that better than any descendants of the colonizers. Did they get to have any say?
- green_wheel 2mo ago
  Yes that is a great example. You certainly don't want what happened to them happening to you.
  - Razengan 2mo ago
    Yeah that's a great example of hypocrisy
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - green_wheel 2mo ago
      No one actually thinks this is hypocrisy. No one is giving up their houses to Native Americans. They do an land acknowledgement and call it even. Even the most liberal among us don't feel it's necessary to sacrifice any meaningful amount of their own comfort to right some past wrongs.