When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas • Hacker News Board

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#131

Post by morgante » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

kobeya wrote: post #120

morgante wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.) Without governments, there is no impedance to freedom of movement. This isn't merely theoretical: as governments have become stronger and their reach extended across the globe, the ability to move…

I don't think "human right" means what you think it does. Before governments, anybody could straight up murder anyone else, as long as they were ruthless enough to also murder anyone who might want to avenge the deceased. The world was a viscious place ruled by the strong, with no guarantees of anything. "Human rights" are something that didn't exist in the state of nature but were invented afterwards.

> I don't think "human right" means what you think it does.

This is a rude way of approaching a discussion. Don't make my assumptions about my knowledge.

A much better way of starting a discussion would be to state what you believe the definition of a human right is. There are in fact many different philosophical views on what human rights are, with many philosophers in fact arguing that their origin is in natural rights. [0]

> "Human rights" are something that didn't exist in the state of nature but were invented afterwards.

That's pretty much what is implied by my first line:

> Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#132

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #29

The UK has obviously seen a lot of debate about immigration recently, around the Brexit referendum. I've often felt like non-EU immigration was the elephant in the room during all this. 'Leave' voters have often been portrayed as racist bigots by liberal 'Remain' voters. (I'm one of the latter, and I've been guilty of this myself at times). But if we extend the same logic to the whole world, isn't the EU basically a…

>I don't think it's possible to make the liberal case for EU freedom of movement without being something of a hypocrite.

I've heard a good argument for something like that - let me see if I can convey it well.

Countries have varying levels of corruption in them. See: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table . In particular, notice how high up many of the Schengen area countries are.

We don't really understand why some countries are corrupt, and others aren't. It might be another byproduct of industrialization and wealth, like the low birth rate and later marriage age. But, scarily, it could be a cultural accident; people in the west aren't corrupt simply because they're surrounded by others who aren't corrupt and would punish corruption.

There's other magical cultural things too - economic productivity and innovation aren't well understood either.

Anyhow, the thrust of the argument is that there's some special cultural factor that causes all sorts of incredibly valuable things to happen in countries like the UK. You don't have to bribe the police officer when you get pulled over, you can generally trust that you get what you're buying in stores, people often try to make money by innovating rather than extracting, and talking about controversial subjects gets you a discussion rather than a beating. We don't know why we have this, and opening our borders puts it at risk.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#133

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #103

yummyfajitas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If helping people is what we care about, perhaps we should consider whether unrestricted immigration or basic income/other welfare state policies will help more. From what I can tell, neither BI nor traditional welfare states can come even remotely close to the benefits of open borders. It kind of makes one wonder whether helping people is the real goal of BI proponents. As for the "sudden influx," I think it's impor…

> I suspect if Europe imported more peaceful immigrants, or even had a credible plan to handle this issue, the sudden influx would be less of a problem. Well, that's the problem, isn't it? If the immigrants are all "some Indian or Russian working at a bank, doing yoga after work and then going home" then we're fine, but unrestricted immigration would mean accepting the violent criminals, or racists, or foreign agents…

You seem to be suggesting that it's perfectly fine to have tremendous inequality (compare Dharavi to Baltimore) as long as it enables long term business investments.

Is there any reason why that argument doesn't apply to inequality within a country as well?

In particular, what about inequality caused by within country trade barriers?

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#134

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #107

sheepz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it is not because the UK leaders or people think of Nigerians as somekind of subhumans like you seem to be making it out to be. It's just that such deal would not be beneficial for Britain, whereas as in Schengen, there are clear benefits.

But that brings us back to my original point. We end up discriminating against individuals based on which country they're from. I'm fine with discriminating against individuals based on how "beneficial" they are as a person, provided the criteria are fair and objective. I'm not so fine with discriminating against individuals based on how "beneficial" it was to make a deal with their country. To give an extreme exampl…

>How is that not unfair discrimination, or even racism?

It is unfair, and it is discrimination. The benefits of having unrestricted borders with Germany are simply more valuable. Like, I'm okay with unfairly admitting an illiterate unemployed German felon if it means that we get a bunch of highly valuable movement, trade, and collaboration between our countries. The German felon is part of a valuable package of cross-border interactions, and if you're not part of the package deal, you have to convince us on your own merit.

Another tack: being a German citizen is Bayesian evidence that you're probably like the average German. How is it fair to the German to spend large quantities of time and money to prove something we already have good reason to believe is true?

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#135

Post by ori_b » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #130

ori_b wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that the word "racism" has ceased to have meaning. "I wish there was less passport control and easier migration." "RACIST!"

When a white person laments about how much "we've given up" since 1910 it is a racist action. Sorry the truth hurts. It's similar to those that look back on the 50s as a golden age in America. Sure, it's golden if you're a white male. We haven't given up shit since 1910, progress has been unimaginable and it's actually EASIER to travel internationally now than it was then. So yeah, if you're going to pretend like 191…

Yep. Racism has become a meaningless accusation, tossed around so lightly that I can conclude nothing when I hear it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't leave me a good term for the people like the ones that murdered most of my grandmother's family because of their race.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#136

Post by sbierwagen » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #29

The UK has obviously seen a lot of debate about immigration recently, around the Brexit referendum. I've often felt like non-EU immigration was the elephant in the room during all this. 'Leave' voters have often been portrayed as racist bigots by liberal 'Remain' voters. (I'm one of the latter, and I've been guilty of this myself at times). But if we extend the same logic to the whole world, isn't the EU basically a…

https://medium.com/@BigMeanInternet/the-fascist-bogeyman-137...

  Our global system is supposedly based on something like collective
  self-determination, but it’s grafted onto a map drawn by colonial
  violence and pseudo-scientific ideas about Gauls and Teutons. Fascism is a
  particular combination of Romantic/Victorian ambitions and modern tools
  that sparks to life as the two eras grind against each other. Frankenstein
  with the arms of capitalist industry and the heart of a monarchist.
  Patriotic young Hitler inhaling mustard gas in the trenches, like a panel
  from the first issue of a comic book.

  Modern liberal states have never truly reconciled their racial character
  with their democratic pretensions. I’m not clear on how such a thing
  could be possible; where would a truly pluralist state draw its borders
  and why? Flipping through a history book it’s hard to argue that the
  nation-state system doesn’t exist for the arbitrarily divided glory of
  western Europeans. The official line is that we’re supposed to ignore
  that part, or be sad. But some people don’t want to ignore it and they
  aren’t sad. Instead they wonder why we have the nice borders that their
  conquering “ancestors” drew but all these people on the wrong sides.
  If taking Mexico’s land for white people was illegitimate, then why
  haven’t we given it back? And if it was legitimate, then what’s wrong
  with a wall to protect our side from a reversal? The liberal patriots,
  they say, are lying to themselves; there is no nationalism that is not
  ethno-nationalism.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#137

Post by pzh » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #95

tdkl wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cologne rape happened after this article, so did the massacres in France and Germany.

Which of the massacres were perpetrated by refugees or illegal immigrants? The Nice attack was made by a legal immigrant, living in France for more than a decade. The Brussels ISIL cell members were almost all born in Belgium, France or Sweden. The Charlie Hebdo shooters were born in France, as was the guy who took those hostages in the supermarket. The Munich shooter was born in Germany. Which ones am I missing?

Born in France doesn't mean socially and culturally integrated. Many of these attackers were children of immigrants who either didn't integrate because of their own cultural beliefs or because the host society didn't provide the necessary conditions. Whatever the reason, these people didn't feel like they belong to the host societies and radicalized. If anything, these attacks are examples of unsuccessful integration and of the failures of free movement and immigration of people of radically different cultural beliefs, and not the other way around.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#138

Post by Inufu » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #127

Symbiote wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone unaware: note that the Daily Mail is the most openly xenophobic newspaper in Britain, and RT (Russia Today) is a state-funded propaganda TV network. Russia has a clear interest in destabilizing the European Union. The Daily Mail's motive is less clear.

What is the relevance to this discussion? Are you actually asserting that the facts raised there are false, or are you simply trying to get people to dismiss true statements?

There's a good chance that anything on RT is either false or presented in a very misleading way - they are a propaganda outfit for the Kremlin after all.

See eg. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-c... or http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-wa...

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#139

Post by ThrustVectoring » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #11

I'm appalled at how many self-described liberals I know who consider themselves to be guardians of civil liberties not bat an eye to these restrictions. The matter of fact is that all the restrictions we put in place with respect to the free movement of peoples -- and the accompanying restrictions around employment, leisure, etc. -- are single-handedly the single biggest breach of human rights in the world. It is abs…

I'm concerned about opening up the borders before we understand why some countries are corrupt and others aren't. In a place like the US, trying to bribe a police officer is unexpected, and everyone who gets involved in the situation ends up working to punish those involved in the bribery. In a place like Venezuela, bribing a police officer is expected, and everyone who gets involved in the situation ends up getting paid or threatened into supporting the status quo.

Corruption isn't the only cultural artifact that's under threat, but if we understand what's going on well enough, I'd be much more confident that opening the borders won't cause existential threat to what makes the host nations great.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#140

Post by rwmj » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #18

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #11

I'm appalled at how many self-described liberals I know who consider themselves to be guardians of civil liberties not bat an eye to these restrictions. The matter of fact is that all the restrictions we put in place with respect to the free movement of peoples -- and the accompanying restrictions around employment, leisure, etc. -- are single-handedly the single biggest breach of human rights in the world. It is abs…

I support freedom of movement, but I also understand people's worries about unmanageable burdens placed on support systems for a nation's people. Of course, if there were no support systems this would be a moot point, and is one of the few counterarguments to, say, increased public healthcare or pensions, that made sense. HN has a lot of proponents of universal basic income. Say a small country, maybe Iceland with on…

Fourth option would be to extend the benefit only to people who have a place to sleep at night, ie. house owners, renters, staying in a hotel etc. That places a natural limit on the number of people who can stay (the size of the housing stock), and doesn't present any problems for existing citizens or tourists.

You could combine this by aggressively deporting people found sleeping rough (which given the extreme cold in Iceland would also be helping them).