Open Borders

Author: rbelivb

Posts

Total: 162
Topic's author
#1
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
Open borders is the principle of free movement. It refers to the ability of people from any country to live and work wherever they wish, and its main function is to increase the pool of labour available for increased economic production. Advocates for open borders say that this would double world GDP, and that restrictions on movement constitute an unethical state incursion on the ability of individuals to associate freely based upon voluntary contracts. Critics of open borders argue that increasing the labour pool reduces the bargaining power of the working class, or that cultural differences will make the immigrants too dangerous or lazy to make the economic benefits worthwhile.

In my opinion, free movement is the most important human right. When individuals are given the widest possible horizon of people who they may associate with, the boundaries of human creativity are expanded. Free movement of labour is an essential component of the market, and the existence of multiple cultures within a society reduces the capacity for any one corporate entity to gain a foothold and consolidate its power into a monopoly.

#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Countless cultures and civilizations were lost due to open/weak borders. Open borders only favors the stronger and more aggressive cultures.
Topic's author
#3
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Countless cultures and civilizations were lost due to open/weak borders. Open borders only favors the stronger and more aggressive cultures.

In my view, it is a benefit for people to live in a society which promotes the most rational and prosocial habits and reduces the influence of isolating or unhealthy ones. The market provides just this kind of metric for selecting among cultural patterns. I don't see why you wish the cultures you are referring to were preserved if they were "weaker" by your own estimation.
#4
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
Yeah, how about we don't let the third world decimate our social safety net and disrupt our cultural unity, sound good?
Topic's author
#5
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, how about we don't let the third world decimate our social safety net and disrupt our cultural unity, sound good?

Unlike conservatives, I don't think social policies or cultural forms should be instituted by force, especially if they are imposing a cost on people.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@rbelivb
So I take it you're Okay with the destruction of Native Americans? For the good of humanity right?
#7
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
So you are against welfare because it forces costs on people? And you are against culture because.....?
Topic's author
#8
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So I take it you're Okay with the destruction of Native Americans? For the good of humanity right?

No, I don't agree with aggression upon the possessions or autonomy of others. It would be perverse to compare, say, the consolidation of state power by way of imperial conquest in America, Australia, or Israel, to individual immigrants moving to another country to live and work there.
Topic's author
#9
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you are against welfare because it forces costs on people? And you are against culture because.....?

There is a difference between being opposed to something and not wanting it imposed upon people against their will. In a social order based upon free association, people would be able to subscribe to any of the social forms you like, but their ability to consolidate them into corporate monopolies would be curtailed.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@rbelivb

There is a difference between being opposed to something and not wanting it imposed upon people against their will.

The more aggressive culture imposes its will in a clash of cultures. Open borders facilitates this, as it did in the past with the destruction of Native American culture and today with the invasion of an aggressive  Islamic culture into open borders EU.

Open border philosophy represents a return to Colonialism, where inferior local cultures were morphed and destroyed by a dominant, invasive, and aggressive culture.
Topic's author
#11
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The more aggressive culture imposes its will in a clash of cultures. Open borders facilitates this, as it did in the past with the destruction of Native American culture and today with the invasion of an aggressive  Islamic culture into open borders EU.

The fact that you are calling the imperial decimation of native americans "open borders" indicates that you are applying a wholly misleading and ideological construction to try to equate two totally incongruous things. Immigration and violent imperial invasion can be easily and clearly distinguished. What you are proposing is in fact an imposition upon people, because you want to limit their freedom of movement and association, as well as imposing an economic cost upon them. You are proposing a culture that would be imposed by force upon the individuals within that culture.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@rbelivb
Open border philosophy represents a return to Colonialism, where inferior local cultures were morphed and destroyed by a dominant, invasive, and aggressive culture.
Topic's author
#13
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Open border philosophy represents a return to Colonialism, where inferior local cultures were morphed and destroyed by a dominant, invasive, and aggressive culture.

This is Dinesh D'Souza style mental gymnastics. You are trying to stretch the meaning of concepts to malign something you disagree with by comparing it with something most people already agree is bad, instead of actually making an argument against it.
#14
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
pollywanna

the invasion of an aggressive  Islamic culture into open borders EU.
You don't have any evidence for this tripe so why do you spew it?
#15
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
pollywanna

Open border philosophy represents a return to Colonialism, where inferior local cultures were morphed and destroyed by a dominant, invasive, and aggressive culture.
Just as the USA is attempting accross the globe now!
#16
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Countless cultures and civilizations were lost due to open/weak borders. Open borders only favors the stronger and more aggressive cultures.
What is so good about a culture or civilization if it can't survive against other more survivable cultures? 



#17
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
cultural unity
A two party inherently divides a country. One wants open borders another doesn't. The "cultural unity" can only be met under a one party system. Dictatorship, Monarchy and others I am missing. 

#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
What is so good about a culture or civilization if it can't survive against other more survivable cultures?

So you're okay with the elimination of the Native American culture, both North and South?
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@rbelivb
This is Dinesh D'Souza style mental gymnastics. You are trying to stretch the meaning of concepts to malign something you disagree with by comparing it with something most people already agree is bad, instead of actually making an argument against it.
Unless Open borders is a universal thing, and there is no indication that it will ever be so, cultures with closed borders will always have to opportunity to exploit cultures with open borders.

Let's see as a trial period if Mexico will allow any American to work and settle down anywhere they want to in Mexico. Not just the rich Americans, any American. Let's see how Mexican citizens react to becoming Americanized over time. So far, they don't seem very eager to give it all away.


Topic's author
#20
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's see as a trial period if Mexico will allow any American to work and settle down anywhere they want to in Mexico. Not just the rich Americans, any American. Let's see how Mexican citizens react to becoming Americanized over time. So far, they don't seem very eager to give it all away.

Of course I would support that "trial period," but I still don't see your argument as to prioritizing protection of particular cultures above free movement and free association. A multicultural society would allow multiple cultures to coexist, without any consolidating its power to exploit the others. Again, you are making attempted appeals to hypocrisy rather than actually arguing against the policy.
#21
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A two party inherently divides a country. One wants open borders another doesn't. The "cultural unity" can only be met under a one party system. Dictatorship, Monarchy and others I am missing. 

I mean, you are not wrong. I'm of course not proposing that our country does or should have one set of ideas. We are unified in our culture, not our beliefs. Now, unless someone is super far-left, they generally love our country, our Founding Fathers, and the whole American ethos. That is what binds us together, not expressing group-think.
#22
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
And why should people from crappy nations be able to force their will to enter our flourishing nation against the will of our people?
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
The very idea that there are no unifying principles that the left and the right can agree on is an argument to scrap the entire thing and start over.
#24
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean, I would be okay with starting again. Leave everything the same, but without California.

But honestly, the fact is that everyone of most political persuasions want a better life for Americans. Just because we think the other side's way of doing things is a worse way of achieving that doesn't mean that we aren't unified.
Topic's author
#25
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
And why should people from crappy nations be able to force their will to enter our flourishing nation against the will of our people?

The whole argument of open borders is that nobody should retain control over territory by force. If there were open borders, "people from crappy nations" wouldn't need to "force their will" to move wherever their labor is most required, because they would be allowed and incentivized to do so.
#26
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
Ok, but collectives of people share common history, customs, and values. Some of those groups of people who are successful don't want others tarnishing their culture, bringing crime, etc. Why are you neglecting their collective desire to keep those people out while you champion the right of the singular people who wish to violate a group's desire?

I don't want Americans' wages to get decimated and their working conditions to be destroyed, but apparently that is completely what you are in favor of. The goal of countries is to look out for the interests of their citizens, and you are robbing citizens of the ability to look out for each others' collective interests.
Topic's author
#27
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why are you neglecting their collective desire to keep those people out while you champion the right of the singular people who wish to violate a group's desire?

These groups have a right to band together and form enclaves or clubs based on whatever culture they prefer. I fully respect the rights of individuals to join groups based upon common interests and to attempt to have these interests represented politically. However, their ability to consolidate their power into large corporate bodies should be curtailed. We live in a unipolar world, and for the US to feign a stance of self-enclosed egotism is naive when the balance of geopolitical influence is tilted so disproportionately in its own favor.


I don't want Americans' wages to get decimated and their working conditions to be destroyed, but apparently that is completely what you are in favor of. The goal of countries is to look out for the interests of their citizens, and you are robbing citizens of the ability to look out for each others' collective interests.

Why are workers paid a wage? It is a measure of their productivity, and the whole reason people are employed is in order to produce goods and services. You are proposing to impose limits upon the labor pool, effectively diminishing the productive capacity of that economy, in order to artificially bolster the bargaining power of the working class.
#28
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
These groups have a right to band together and form enclaves or clubs based on whatever culture they prefer. I fully respect the rights of individuals to join groups based upon common interests and to attempt to have these interests represented politically. However, their ability to consolidate their power into large corporate bodies should be curtailed. We live in a unipolar world, and for the US to feign a stance of self-enclosed egotism is naive when the balance of geopolitical influence is tilted so disproportionately in its own favor.

You are using very odd terminology here. Are you using country and "corporate body" interchangeably? 

Why are workers paid a wage? It is a measure of their productivity, and the whole reason people are employed is in order to produce goods and services. You are proposing to impose limits upon the labor pool, effectively diminishing the productive capacity of that economy, in order to artificially bolster the bargaining power of the working class.

If the company is so concerned about the labor pool, they have every right to export their jobs. We are a country with good laws, which is why they prefer to stay here. Why are you trying to send millions of impoverished immigrants here to undercut the wages of Americans? Your laws might help some businesses make larger profits, but you are screwing American workers. If you are in favor of worsening the lives of American citizens, then you can keep on pushing for this open borders lunacy.
#29
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@rbelivb
How about I phrase it this way: Is your ideal America a place where most people work in sweatshops?
Topic's author
#30
rbelivb
rbelivb's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 210
1
2
5
rbelivb's avatar
rbelivb
1
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
You are using very odd terminology here. Are you using country and "corporate body" interchangeably? 

In a corporate body, unlike other mere clubs, companies, or groups, power is consolidated into a single entity that enjoys rights usually reserved only for individual citizens. This is just what you are ascribing to the US when you invoke the idea that cultures can be violated, or that the desires or sovereignty of the "culture" of the US ought to be prioritized over those of the individual members of society.


Your laws might help some businesses make larger profits, but you are screwing American workers.

Is the purpose of employment not the productive utility it adds to the economy? How is it not corruption if you have workers doing unnecessary or under-productive labour to create an inflated measure of their value?