3 ms·

I'd say being the leader of and building from scratch one of the most impactful companies in recent history is a pretty good credential. You don't think he's l

by onedev 13y ago

I'd say being the leader of and building from scratch one of the most impactful companies in recent history is a pretty good credential. You don't think he's learned a few lessons in the past 10 years that gives him some insight that's useful? EDIT: Note that I'm not saying whether what he's lobbying for is right or wrong. I'm just saying, theres a pretty good reason to see what he has to say. FWIW, my dad was an immigrant to America and worked hard and through much pain to get through the immigration process, and I finally just got my citizenship after 10+ years of growing up in the USA. The family has been through much suffering but I wouldn't be where I am today if it wasn't for my dad being able to come to the States. I agree with Zuck's intentions even though he may or may not have different underlying motives. In fact, we were all immigrants at one point, no reason to shut the door for other people now. Who gives a fuck if it drives down wages or puts more competition in the workforce. It's that versus a more open world for everyone. I'd choose the latter even if I have to take a paycut.

rayiner 13y ago
> You don't think he's learned a few lessons in the past 10 years that gives him some insight that's useful? Insight into running a big organization? Sure. Insight into global politics? Not really. > Who gives a fuck if it drives down wages or puts more competition in the workforce. It's that versus a more open world for everyone. My dad was an immigrant too, and I got my citizenship about 8 years after moving here (at which point I had been living in the U.S. for most of my life). I don't give a damn about a "more open world for everyone." The purpose of a country is to maximize the prosperity of its citizens. Sometimes that's furthered by making things more open, and sometimes it isn't, but the key consideration should be the people who are already part of the body politic. That's the only morally justifiable way of running a democracy. The people did not give up some of their freedom in order to institute government just so that government could sell out their interests in favor of the interests of other people. Those people have governments to watch out for their interests--they don't need ours to do so. Certainly, they don't want their governments watching out for our interests at the expense of theirs.
- harryh 13y ago
  Can't a group of citizens can have interests beyond their personal prosperity?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Sure, and if that was the expressed view of the majority of the people, that's certainly the path government should follow. The way I look at it is that some policies are intrinsically justifiable and some are not. If a policy is claimed to benefit the nation, it is intrinsically justifiable even if the people are not necessarily totally convinced of its utility (this is the prerogative of a government within a republican democratic system). If a policy is not claimed to benefit the nation, but to benefit other people, it must be justified on the basis of the fact that the people as a whole choose to be generous in that instance.

by onedev 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> You don't think he's learned a few lessons in the past 10 years that gives him some insight that's useful? Insight into running a big organization? Sure. Insight into global politics? Not really. > Who gives a fuck if it drives down wages or puts more competition in the workforce. It's that versus a more open world for everyone. My dad was an immigrant too, and I got my citizenship about 8 years after moving here (at which point I had been living in the U.S. for most of my life). I don't give a damn about a "more open world for everyone." The purpose of a country is to maximize the prosperity of its citizens. Sometimes that's furthered by making things more open, and sometimes it isn't, but the key consideration should be the people who are already part of the body politic. That's the only morally justifiable way of running a democracy. The people did not give up some of their freedom in order to institute government just so that government could sell out their interests in favor of the interests of other people. Those people have governments to watch out for their interests--they don't need ours to do so. Certainly, they don't want their governments watching out for our interests at the expense of theirs.

harryh 13y ago
Can't a group of citizens can have interests beyond their personal prosperity?
- rayiner 13y ago
  Sure, and if that was the expressed view of the majority of the people, that's certainly the path government should follow. The way I look at it is that some policies are intrinsically justifiable and some are not. If a policy is claimed to benefit the nation, it is intrinsically justifiable even if the people are not necessarily totally convinced of its utility (this is the prerogative of a government within a republican democratic system). If a policy is not claimed to benefit the nation, but to benefit other people, it must be justified on the basis of the fact that the people as a whole choose to be generous in that instance.