On Sun, 30 Dec 2001, cryofan wrote:
> > Re: the ExI lack-of-position vis-a-vis libertarianism or politics.
> disingenuous...
I'm not sure why. IMO, ExI exists to encourage rational discussion,
not to adopt positions. Rational discussion seems to suggest one
takes a position so long as it is useful from some perspective.
Adopting "labels" that represent positions makes it more difficult
to change those positions when they are no longer useful.
> > Re: degree of interconnectedness and "personal responsibility"
> non sequitir...
Perhaps I wasn't clear -- If I value my "family" members more than
I value the average citizen of the 3rd world (i.e. I'm strongly
interconnected and view my responsibility to them as very high),
then I'm likely to be against immigration (if immigration threatens
my income or their income) -- I may even be against globalization
and believe in protectionist trade policies. If on the other hand
I view myself as a "citizen of the world" and view my "personal
responsibility" to be largely to humanity and not any specific
individuals, then I'm likely to feel that anyone should be allowed
to immigrate anywhere.
> computronium...how is this relevant?
In the future there will be hard limits on how much computronium
one can have. Now there are limits on how much capital, air, water,
oil, etc. one can have. It was perhaps a poor metaphor if one
is unfamiliar with previous discussions on the topic.
> >Re: "Which is better -- natural selection or fairness?"
>
> You have once again wandered in a fantasyland of extropian jargona and
> doctrine....massive non sequitir....
Hmmmm... I personally find "Perpetual Progress" and "Self-Transformation"
two of the more important aspects of "Extropian Principles". IMO,
one cannot have perpetual progress without natural selection.
At the same time without some "fairness" a lot of people will
never have the opportunity to self-transform. To me there
seems to be an inherent tension between those two principles.
(I assume that the FAQ should be attempting to answer questions
that may in part arise from the Principles).
> >In spite of the fact that most Americans are descended from
> >people who took advantage of relatively open borders.
>
> How is this relevant? At what point does this twisted logic end? When
> there are 6 billion people here?
Or perhaps even more. My father's ancestors had the opportunity
to be some of the first people to colonize the U.S. My mother's
ancestors got to flee Ireland during the potato famines. It
seems unethical (to me) to deny to others the opportunities
that my ancestors had.
A quick glance at the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
(http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) suggests that a
restrictive immigration policy violates numerous articles.
e.g. Article 15.
> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor
> denied the right to change his nationality.
> >In part this is natural human xenophobia and in part this
>
> That's good...I always respond to labels like "xenophobe" and "commie,
> commie"....
I don't believe that I suggested those were "labels". Humans
(and any "sophisticated" species) *naturally* fears the unknown.
Those that don't do not survive for long, thus "xenophobia" is
a natural trait.
I was using the "communist" system as one which tried to create
inherent "equality" for all of its citizens (as perhaps does the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights tries to do for all humans).
Unfortunately the communist approach by most accounts was
not successful. (Presumably economies are most productive
by allowing the smartest to excel and reap the benefits
and not utilize resources to support otherwise unproductive
members of society -- i.e. the most productive economies
are those that allow the greatest amount of natural selection).
> The immigration system ALWAYS benefited those who own and hurt those
> who work...
Facts not in evidence. My ancestors were farmers and fishermen.
They had to clear the land, plow the fields, build the boats, etc.
To the degree they worked they were the ones who benefited.
> People who tresspass into the USA in the name of stealing benefits of
> citizenship are criminals and should be prosecuted as such.
Non-citizens coming to the USA don't have the benefits of citizenship
other than to the extent citizens and their elected representatives
have chosen to grant them some of those rights.
> That should deter illegal immigration. The will of the American public
> (60% want less immigration) should be enforced.
It doesn't solve the problem. The American public still wants
cheap sneakers and computers -- that is why the sneaker and computer
chip factories are now being built in China. The only reason I
can see Americans being opposed to more immigration is to protect
their jobs or salaries. The jobs and salaries are leaving anyway.
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
Interesting. I find some flaws. I don't think the U.S. can
be considered the "welfare-state" it once was. I do think the
current immigration policies more closely mimic the policies
of a monarchy rather than a democracy. Those who have wealth
or certain educations or desirable skills have a much easier
time getting into the U.S. than those who don't.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:33 MDT