The Moral Case for Open Borders.
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Keep the borders and let the people with in them change the system........
Yanis Varoufakis makes the case (link is external) for an international progressive political system to ensure that social progress doesn't stop at national borders:
(T)raditional political parties are fading into irrelevance, supplanted by the emergence of two new political blocs.
One bloc represents the old troika of liberalization, globalization, and financialization. It may still be in power, but its stock is falling fast, as David Cameron, Europe’s social democrats, Hillary Clinton, the European Commission, and even Greece’s post-capitulation Syriza government can attest.
Trump, Le Pen, Britain’s right-wing Brexiteers, Poland’s and Hungary’s illiberal governments, and Russian President Vladimir Putin are forming the second bloc. Theirs is a nationalist international – a classic creature of a deflationary period – united by contempt for liberal democracy and the ability to mobilize those who would crush it.
The clash between these two blocs is both real and misleading. Clinton vs. Trump constitutes a genuine battle, for example, as does the European Union vs. the Brexiteers; but the two combatants are accomplices, not foes, in perpetuating an endless loop of mutual reinforcement, with each side defined by – and mobilizing its supporters on the basis of – what it opposes.
The only way out of this political trap is progressive internationalism, based on solidarity among large majorities around the world who are prepared to rekindle democratic politics on a planetary scale. If this sounds Utopian, it is worth emphasizing that the raw materials are already available.
Bernie Sanders’s “political revolution” in the US, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the UK’s Labour Party, DiEM25 (the Democracy in Europe Movement) (link is external) on the continent: these are the harbingers of an international progressive movement that can define the intellectual terrain upon which democratic politics must build
Yanis Varoufakis makes the case (link is external) for an international progressive political system to ensure that social progress doesn't stop at national borders:
(T)raditional political parties are fading into irrelevance, supplanted by the emergence of two new political blocs.
One bloc represents the old troika of liberalization, globalization, and financialization. It may still be in power, but its stock is falling fast, as David Cameron, Europe’s social democrats, Hillary Clinton, the European Commission, and even Greece’s post-capitulation Syriza government can attest.
Trump, Le Pen, Britain’s right-wing Brexiteers, Poland’s and Hungary’s illiberal governments, and Russian President Vladimir Putin are forming the second bloc. Theirs is a nationalist international – a classic creature of a deflationary period – united by contempt for liberal democracy and the ability to mobilize those who would crush it.
The clash between these two blocs is both real and misleading. Clinton vs. Trump constitutes a genuine battle, for example, as does the European Union vs. the Brexiteers; but the two combatants are accomplices, not foes, in perpetuating an endless loop of mutual reinforcement, with each side defined by – and mobilizing its supporters on the basis of – what it opposes.
The only way out of this political trap is progressive internationalism, based on solidarity among large majorities around the world who are prepared to rekindle democratic politics on a planetary scale. If this sounds Utopian, it is worth emphasizing that the raw materials are already available.
Bernie Sanders’s “political revolution” in the US, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the UK’s Labour Party, DiEM25 (the Democracy in Europe Movement) (link is external) on the continent: these are the harbingers of an international progressive movement that can define the intellectual terrain upon which democratic politics must build
The Roman Matyrology is filled with missionaries who travelled to Muslim lands and sacraficed their lives. Of course there have been converts. True converts always do so in complete freedom, led by conscience and reason. Typically Islam has converted by conquest and by intimidation, to the point of execution, of all who resisted forced submission. Conversion or submission. those are quite different things and speak to the authenticity of the respective faiths.
Last edited:
Firstly, you're misinformed. Imposing Islam has been relatively recent. Now you might be talking about the protection fee that Muslim states chrge non-Muslims, but on the flip side non-Muslims are not required for fight for the country and the state is theoretically supposed to provide a synagogue or church when the community cannot afford its own.
That said, I agree that many Muslim states have interpreted the rights granted minorities in the narrowest sense, almost with an attitute that they must tolerate them because their writings require them to. But then we mustn't confuse the teachings of Islam with a state that calls itself Muslim. Likewise, there is scholarly debate based on passages of the Quran as to whether a man is allowed to have more than one wife. It has to do with a condition that a man can have up to four wives on condition that he treat them equally, but then a separate passage stating that he cannot treat them equally. Ergo, he cannot fulfil the obligation and so must have only one wife. However, those who hold any position of political power are of the former opinion, and so many Muslim states allow polygamy.
But again, that has to do with various interpretations, not the Qur'an itself. Le't not forget the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. in Christian Europe too. It would be equally unfair to blame the Gospel for the actions of the church.
But then again,this has to do with various interpretations, not the communist manifesto itself.
Gotta ask, are you making the same point, or is it different, and if it is different, how is it different?
Gotta ask, are you making the same point, or is it different, and if it is different, how is it different?
Well it's simple, isn't it.... Outlaw all organized religions. As social gathering places, Church is in its element. In politics, it just provides more souls for the pyre
What about national intolorance? It seems to me that discrimination on the basis of nationality is the last frontier if seemingly socially acceptable discrimination. Sex, race, and ethnic discrimination are still present no doubt, but they also far far more rejection than nationalism does.
In the context of your desire to bust past all immigration bureaucracy with a simple marriage certificate, it is neither correct or moral for Canada to be expected offer the rights of a Canadian citizen to the entire world. Is this what you are referring to as national intolerance, or do you have something else in mind?
Not Canadian citizenship, but free movement of labour. I'm for very open economic borders.
Svelgard might be a model.
interprovincial would mean canadian, foriegners waving a marriage certificate aren't canadians yet, hell they aren't even an immigrant yet.
In a 'oh joy, of bliss' lala type of world it might work. Or maybe, between certain countries, but overall, no, never. Exceptions (let's play pretend like this moral case): when possible.... Canada and England, yes; Syria and Iran, yes; France and Belgium, yes; Norway and Iceland, yes; Brazil and Mexico..... but even the,NO
I guess it's a philosophical difference. I view discrimination on the basis of nationality in the same light as discrimination on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, language, religion, and disability for example. I know most Cabadiabs even on the keft would disagree with me on this point, but that's just how I see it.
Sorry that you feel so self entitled to other countries.
Admit it, it is your responsibility to I migrate correctly by meeting the bureaucratic requirement. Admit that it is not the canadian government job to accommodate all 13 billion humans on the planet.
Admit it, it is your responsibility to I migrate correctly by meeting the bureaucratic requirement. Admit that it is not the canadian government job to accommodate all 13 billion humans on the planet.
Do you really believe the whole world would come here? If that happened, housing construction couldn't keep up and wage increases would not keep up with inflation.
It wouldn't take long before people started looking elsewhere. It's called a free market. I just don't believe that I have a right to claim unearned benefits acquired by mere birth.
My point has more to do with responsibility and a disdain for self entitlement.
I am all for free market. But I have a different understanding of that concept than you are presenting.
For example, when a salesman comes to my door. It is his responsibility to convince me that I want his product. It is his responsibility to peak my interest enough to listen to his sales pitch. It is his responsibility to make a case for the safety of his product. It is his responsibility to make sure his product is CSA approved. I am not obliged to listen to him, buy from him, and he can kiss my big fat Hiney if he think I owe him anything.
If a salesman shows up at my door with a marriage cert to my neighbor,that might give him a few more seconds of my time but it doesn't grant him any exemption of his responsibilities and I certainly am not going to agree with any of his imaginary self entitlements. The only thing he deserves is the door slammed in his face until he learns his responsibilities.
I am all for free market. But I have a different understanding of that concept than you are presenting.
For example, when a salesman comes to my door. It is his responsibility to convince me that I want his product. It is his responsibility to peak my interest enough to listen to his sales pitch. It is his responsibility to make a case for the safety of his product. It is his responsibility to make sure his product is CSA approved. I am not obliged to listen to him, buy from him, and he can kiss my big fat Hiney if he think I owe him anything.
If a salesman shows up at my door with a marriage cert to my neighbor,that might give him a few more seconds of my time but it doesn't grant him any exemption of his responsibilities and I certainly am not going to agree with any of his imaginary self entitlements. The only thing he deserves is the door slammed in his face until he learns his responsibilities.
True. But do you have the right to kick him out of the neighbourhood after you're neighbour has invited him in?
Self-entitlement goes both ways.You do not have the right to kick him out of the neighbourhood unless you've bought the neighbourhood.
Last I checked, much of Canada is private property so the government if Canada does not own it.
To put it another way, if I invite a friend over to my private home and offer him a job in my private business, does the government have the right to interfere as if it owned the home or the business? Like I said, enjoying one's private property us within the bounds of morality not self-entitlement. On the contrary, the government's immorally preventing from so enjoying my property is self-entitlement.
Did you know that 89% of Canada is Government land or public land either federal or provincial
Look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land
Look it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land