4 ms·
This is a clear example of tyrrany of the majority. The majority of people might not want to move state, which is fine, but they prevent other people from exer
by learnstats2 11y ago
This is a clear example of tyrrany of the majority.
The majority of people might not want to move state, which is fine, but they prevent other people from exercising their right to freedom of movement.
But this ends up being bad for everyone - if we are agreed that competition is good, this prevents competition between sovereign states for labour and population.
As an individual, I am stuck with whatever citizenship I was born into - and I have practically no opportunity to revoke my citizenship or try to claim a different or better citizenship. This is absolutely a derogation of a basic human right. I see it as no different morally than, for example, a caste system.
- reinhardt 11y agoLike it or not, human relationships and trust are related to distance, geographical and cultural. Broadly speaking, family > neighborhood > city > state > country > continent > rest of the world. So yes, as an individual you are "stuck" with whatever citizenship you are born into just like you are stuck with whatever parents you are born from. If you think that a country giving privileges to its own citizens compared to foreigners is morally equivalent to a caste system, you might as well claim the same about parents caring more about their own children than other people's children. Good luck with that.
- learnstats2 11y ago> If you think that a country giving privileges to its own citizens My argument is the opposite: countries take away privileges from their citizens by restricting movement. The fact that this is done by states' mutual agreement does not mean people are gaining privilege. Human beings are supposed to migrate - that's why we are all over the world.