Philosophy Now Forum

Freedom of Movement or Migration
This is a pragmatic that is right or wrong according to its usage. And according to the end-value in view.
At the very basic level of logic, unfettered movement of people or anything else, is absurd. A billion people may wish to live in a National Park, but if they did there would no longer be a park. For park read Britain.
Both the environment, and social-cultural identity must restrict who, and how many people, may move to a particular place and indeed country. Without this restriction the whole world will, and already is, finding itself falling into a spiral of degradation.
The natural environment must be protected. But so also must the social environment. Perhaps the reason why the latter is least mentioned by government and press, is because mere plant and insects are easier to deal with without contention. And ignoring both in favour of commerce and ever more goods is even easier.
Altruist society has the most difficult problem. It must do all it can to relieve distress abroad, whilst not sacrificing its own the natural and social environment.
The practical ethic of a world that is in outright chaos or merely anarchistic, is not the same as the internal ethic of a particular altruist society within that chaos.
A complete folly is to leave commerce to expand remorselessly, bringing in endless labour from abroad. Seasonal labour for farms is not entirely at issue, and particular European projects may need expertise from the whole continent. Commerce otherwise needs to be localised and large global conglomerates resisted.

Wait, you're not arguing why we need to protect some preexisting socio-cultural identity.

I think the issue is too big to be controlled. Large commercial and religio/political entities are basically steamrollering all in their path.

If you control global conglomerates in your own region then they form in places with less regulation. With global communications and transport, the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be returned. I don't see much anyone can do about it. The US seemingly has decided to blame science and secularism for its problems, but the nation will find out the hard way that a retreat from reason is not the answer.

RWStanding wrote:Freedom of Movement or Migration
This is a pragmatic that is right or wrong according to its usage. And according to the end-value in view.
At the very basic level of logic, unfettered movement of people or anything else, is absurd. A billion people may wish to live in a National Park, but if they did there would no longer be a park. For park read Britain.
Both the environment, and social-cultural identity must restrict who, and how many people, may move to a particular place and indeed country. Without this restriction the whole world will, and already is, finding itself falling into a spiral of degradation.
The natural environment must be protected. But so also must the social environment. Perhaps the reason why the latter is least mentioned by government and press, is because mere plant and insects are easier to deal with without contention. And ignoring both in favour of commerce and ever more goods is even easier.
Altruist society has the most difficult problem. It must do all it can to relieve distress abroad, whilst not sacrificing its own the natural and social environment.
The practical ethic of a world that is in outright chaos or merely anarchistic, is not the same as the internal ethic of a particular altruist society within that chaos.
A complete folly is to leave commerce to expand remorselessly, bringing in endless labour from abroad. Seasonal labour for farms is not entirely at issue, and particular European projects may need expertise from the whole continent. Commerce otherwise needs to be localised and large global conglomerates resisted.

Very well presented points. Try arguing this with PC SJWs. You might as well bang your head against a block wall. Actually my whole country 'was' very much like a national park until recently. Unfortunately too many people wanted to, and were allowed to, come and live in it. Apparently it's 'racist' to object. The result? That doesn't take a lot of imagination.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Very well presented points. Try arguing this with PC SJWs. You might as well bang your head against a block wall. Actually my whole country 'was' very much like a national park until recently. Unfortunately too many people wanted to, and were allowed to, come and live in it. Apparently it's 'racist' to object. The result? That doesn't take a lot of imagination.

The manipulative false accusations of racism especially rankle. It's hardly racist to not want traffic congestion, long queues and madly intense competition for land and property - the latter more or less destroying the hope of entire generations.

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Very well presented points. Try arguing this with PC SJWs. You might as well bang your head against a block wall. Actually my whole country 'was' very much like a national park until recently. Unfortunately too many people wanted to, and were allowed to, come and live in it. Apparently it's 'racist' to object. The result? That doesn't take a lot of imagination.

The manipulative false accusations of racism especially rankle. It's hardly racist to not want traffic congestion, long queues and madly intense competition for land and property - the latter more or less destroying the hope of entire generations.

Yes, and it's particularly sad and ironic when the country is inundated with people with a completely different culture and value system so the original identity of the country that they wanted to live in (because it was attractive, sparsely populated, and relatively unspoiled) essentially no longer exists. It effectively 'becomes' the country they wanted to leave in the first place.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Very well presented points. Try arguing this with PC SJWs. You might as well bang your head against a block wall. Actually my whole country 'was' very much like a national park until recently. Unfortunately too many people wanted to, and were allowed to, come and live in it. Apparently it's 'racist' to object. The result? That doesn't take a lot of imagination.

The manipulative false accusations of racism especially rankle. It's hardly racist to not want traffic congestion, long queues and madly intense competition for land and property - the latter more or less destroying the hope of entire generations.

Yes, and it's particularly sad and ironic when the country is inundated with people with a completely different culture and value system so the original identity of the country that they wanted to live in (because it was attractive, sparsely populated, and relatively unspoiled) essentially no longer exists. It effectively 'becomes' the country they wanted to leave in the first place.

Yes, but it's still better than the difficult places they came from, hence the influxes ...

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote: The manipulative false accusations of racism especially rankle. It's hardly racist to not want traffic congestion, long queues and madly intense competition for land and property - the latter more or less destroying the hope of entire generations.

Yes, and it's particularly sad and ironic when the country is inundated with people with a completely different culture and value system so the original identity of the country that they wanted to live in (because it was attractive, sparsely populated, and relatively unspoiled) essentially no longer exists. It effectively 'becomes' the country they wanted to leave in the first place.

Yes, but it's still better than the difficult places they came from, hence the influxes ...

Cold comfort to the original inhabitants (the ones who kept it nice in the first place). Still, as long as it keeps the SJWs happy, and their 'multi-cultural melting pot' fantasy alive.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Yes, and it's particularly sad and ironic when the country is inundated with people with a completely different culture and value system so the original identity of the country that they wanted to live in (because it was attractive, sparsely populated, and relatively unspoiled) essentially no longer exists. It effectively 'becomes' the country they wanted to leave in the first place.

Yes, but it's still better than the difficult places they came from, hence the influxes ...

Cold comfort to the original inhabitants (the ones who kept it nice in the first place). Still, as long as it keeps the SJWs happy, and their 'multi-cultural melting pot' fantasy alive.

Trouble is, both the left and right want to flood us with people - the latter because it makes the GDP look good, the former through blind ideology. The regular schmucks caught in the middle bear the brunt.

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote: Yes, but it's still better than the difficult places they came from, hence the influxes ...

Cold comfort to the original inhabitants (the ones who kept it nice in the first place). Still, as long as it keeps the SJWs happy, and their 'multi-cultural melting pot' fantasy alive.

Trouble is, both the left and right want to flood us with people - the latter because it makes the GDP look good, the former through blind ideology. The regular schmucks caught in the middle bear the brunt.

Exactly! It creates an artificially high GDP, then idiots say 'oooh, the economy's growing, it must be a good Govt.' (not considering the massive borrowing that neo-'lib' Govts. so adore).

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Cold comfort to the original inhabitants (the ones who kept it nice in the first place). Still, as long as it keeps the SJWs happy, and their 'multi-cultural melting pot' fantasy alive.

Trouble is, both the left and right want to flood us with people - the latter because it makes the GDP look good, the former through blind ideology. The regular schmucks caught in the middle bear the brunt.

Exactly! It creates an artificially high GDP, then idiots say 'oooh, the economy's growing, it must be a good Govt.' (not considering the massive borrowing that neo-'lib' Govts. so adore).

Trouble is that people are too uninformed to appreciate that GDP has relevance in terms of relative power in a region, but it's GDP per capita that matters - and it's been dropping in Oz.

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote: Trouble is, both the left and right want to flood us with people - the latter because it makes the GDP look good, the former through blind ideology. The regular schmucks caught in the middle bear the brunt.

Exactly! It creates an artificially high GDP, then idiots say 'oooh, the economy's growing, it must be a good Govt.' (not considering the massive borrowing that neo-'lib' Govts. so adore).

Trouble is that people are too uninformed to appreciate that GDP has relevance in terms of relative power in a region, but it's GDP per capita that matters - and it's been dropping in Oz.

From what I've seen you have a pretty fascist sort of regime there at the moment--anti-the arts, anti-environment, climate-change inaction if not outright denial...Strange the way the Australian 'liberal' party is anything but. You've had some excellent PMs, but not for a while now.

'' After 20 Years, NAFTA Leaves Mexico’s Economy in Ruins
Twenty years ago, on Jan. 1, 1994, a trade deal championed by Democratic President Bill Clinton went into effect. The North American Free Trade Agreement was meant to integrate the economies of the United States, Canada and Mexico by breaking down trade barriers between them, creating jobs and closing the wage gap between the U.S. and Mexico.''


NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ico-regret

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Exactly! It creates an artificially high GDP, then idiots say 'oooh, the economy's growing, it must be a good Govt.' (not considering the massive borrowing that neo-'lib' Govts. so adore).

Trouble is that people are too uninformed to appreciate that GDP has relevance in terms of relative power in a region, but it's GDP per capita that matters - and it's been dropping in Oz.

From what I've seen you have a pretty fascist sort of regime there at the moment--anti-the arts, anti-environment, climate-change inaction if not outright denial...Strange the way the Australian 'liberal' party is anything but. You've had some excellent PMs, but not for a while now.

Alas, we are near the eye of the Murdochsphere. His lowering of the bar in media ethics has been pivotal in bringing down the west as people are increasingly are distracted by nonsense and trivia. I re-read Brave New World recently. Huxley saw the infantilisation of broader society coming.