DarkKomunalec

45 ms·

391.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Good question. I would say, collective ownership. A country can be thought of as 'owned' by its people, with the rules of ownership agreed upon by the owners themselves (everyone owns an equal share -> 1 person 1 vote, ownershi
392.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Those are secondary effects, and it is very much debatable who they favour. I would argue reducing the labour pool gives workers a stronger bargaining position, and thus better wages, reducing the rising income inequality.
393.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a country's duty to place its own people first, but in the end it's up
394.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Controlling who may enter your country is exactly what the Nazis would do.
395.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Strange how enforcing borders began to be seen as controversial. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is, some people see free movement across borders as a human right, while others view a country as their home, and so should hav
396.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
"but the world becomes a better place when we push tribalism to the sidelines." It seems we're putting the cart before the horse however - allowing immigration first, and trying (unsuccessfully) to get rid of tribalism second
397.
by DarkKomunalec 10y ago
I see a lot of comments to the tune of "Well, don't foreigners deserve work too?" - that may be so, but isn't it a countries' duty to place the interests of its own citizens first?