Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 393 posts

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#371

Post by nhchris »

tptacek wrote: post #368
nhchris wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've sourced my claims, so could you likewise show me this clearly stated goal? You mention Federalist 52 in your other comment, but wikipedia's summary says nothing about racial egalitarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._52

I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't care about the premise of your question, so there's not much for us to productively discuss here. I've been careful about the concepts I'm talking about ("culture" and "religion", both being Rayiner-provided examples of legitimate forms of discrimination). I'm not interested in doing comparative studies on this between different countries; that discussion will be a…

> I don't know what you're talking about

Sure, I'll try to be clearer. You wrote "I'm making a simple positive argument about the clearly stated goal of the founders."

Which goal, and where was it stated?

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#372

Post by tptacek »

nhchris wrote: post #371
tptacek wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you're talking about, and I don't care about the premise of your question, so there's not much for us to productively discuss here. I've been careful about the concepts I'm talking about ("culture" and "religion", both being Rayiner-provided examples of legitimate forms of discrimination). I'm not interested in doing comparative studies on this between different countries; that discussion will be a…

> I don't know what you're talking about Sure, I'll try to be clearer. You wrote "I'm making a simple positive argument about the clearly stated goal of the founders." Which goal, and where was it stated?

Again, I don't think you and I are having the same conversation Rayiner and I are, and I don't think it's worth the effort for us to sync up at this point.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#373

Post by nobody9999 »

nhchris wrote: post #370
nobody9999 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's nothing wrong with immigrants. What's wrong is the old population will disappear, or be put in the perilous position of being a minority in the only territory they can call their own. Look at Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet union for how dangerous that can be - or the Rohingya, or Uyghurs, or countless other examples. Americans aren't Americans because we live in America. Americans are Americans beca…

> Americans are Americans because we believe (or should. Do you?) in the Constitution and the rule of law. I'm not American. But that's not the citizenship condition your founding fathers passed. It's not even the citizenship condition today . > And which "minority" are you talking about? It doesn't matter - all of them living in the US (or any other country) will be subject to the same sub-replacement conditions I a…

You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck.

Fuck off.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#374

Post by nobody9999 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #367
nhchris wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing wrong with immigrants. What's wrong is the old population will disappear, or be put in the perilous position of being a minority in the only territory they can call their own. Look at Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet union for how dangerous that can be - or the Rohingya, or Uyghurs, or countless other examples. Not to mention it is in the interest of any organism, any living being, to produce d…

>There's nothing wrong with immigrants. What's wrong is the old population will disappear, or be put in the perilous position of being a minority in the only territory they can call their own. Look at Ukraine while it was part of the Soviet union for how dangerous that can be - or the Rohingya, or Uyghurs, or countless other examples. Americans aren't Americans because we live in America. Americans are Americans beca…

>I'm not American.

Good. We don't need or want scum like you.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#375

Post by piloto_ciego »

hermannj314 wrote: post #16

I've owned houses in two cities in my life. One called itself "A developer-friendly community" and the other "A healthy community" The cities were organized around their taglines. One was 300 years old and focused on parks, trails, conservancy, and community centers. The other a younger city focused on growth and sprawl, tax abatements, and new businesses. You should live where the government aligns with your phase o…

I wish I could leave my country of origin. It’s basically impossible to vote with your feet.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#376

Post by nhchris »

nobody9999 wrote: post #373
nhchris wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans are Americans because we believe (or should. Do you?) in the Constitution and the rule of law. I'm not American. But that's not the citizenship condition your founding fathers passed. It's not even the citizenship condition today . > And which "minority" are you talking about? It doesn't matter - all of them living in the US (or any other country) will be subject to the same sub-replacement conditions I a…

You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck. Fuck off.

You raise an interesting and well-reasoned argument. I'll need some time to think about it.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#377

Post by nobody9999 »

nhchris wrote: post #376
nobody9999 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck. Fuck off.

You raise an interesting and well-reasoned argument. I'll need some time to think about it.

No rush.

Let's circle back in 2080 or so.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#378

Post by random314 »

rayiner wrote: post #350
tptacek wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, racially-motivated prejudice in either direction between your parents and your wife's parents is, in fact, also racism, despite the fact that neither group was born in the south or has "overlapping culture". Xenophobia is a form of racism; globally, it's probably the most common form.

Incorrect. It’s totally fine to not get along with other people—and certainly to not want to share a democratic polity with them—based on cultural differences. There’s no reason why people who escaped west to get away from elites should we to to share a polity with foreign elites who think the “common people” need to be carefully managed. Conversely, there’s no reason why folks who believe in rigid social hierarchy a…

> Incorrect. It’s totally fine to not get along with other people—and certainly to not want to share a democratic polity with them—based on cultural differences.

I like how Republicans act as master and judge and issue the judgement "incorrect" and go on to adopt a blatantly racist stance under the currently fashionable republican sound bite of "unacceptable cultural differences", while immediately switching to the directly opposite sound bite "diversity of ideas" without flinching. Republicans have a reputation for being racist for very good reasons.

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#379

Post by euroclydon »

rayiner wrote: post #361
tptacek wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Madison, in considering whether the legislature should be limited to native-born citizens, had this to say: "[T]he door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith." There may be countries in the world that don't have a moral obligation to allo…

The moral obligation to allow equal participation of different groups who are already here follows from the concept of democracy. But that does not imply anything about how people within a country should view prospective immigrants. That the founders embraced certain principles because they were dealing with a union that already included disparate groups. They never confronted, much less addressed, the prospect of im…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

Re: Governments should compete for residents, not businesses

#380

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #364
rayiner wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral obligation to allow equal participation of different groups who are already here follows from the concept of democracy. But that does not imply anything about how people within a country should view prospective immigrants. That the founders embraced certain principles because they were dealing with a union that already included disparate groups. They never confronted, much less addressed, the prospect of im…

This isn't an over-generalization of the founders intent. It is the founders directly, clearly stated intent. I'm doing literally no extrapolation at all: you can just crack open Federalist 52 or whatever and read away.

Here is Federalist 52: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed52.asp

Show me where it says there is a moral obligation to accept immigrants who will move into your community and change its culture? You’re reading all that into a single sentence:

“A representative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”

The sentence is saying that elected office should be broadly available to all citizens, which is a point nobody is disputing.

Post reply on HN