Queers invade the White CisHet Male safe space

Human rights are vitally important heuristics, but they are not rules. Talking about rights quickly becomes unproductive when you realize the myriad ways in which they come into conflict with one another.

Having open borders in developed countries is a Good Thing because it leads to better global outcomes, generally speaking.

That said, it’s not worth having open borders if you risk backlash from a nativist populace that would make things even worse. That’s why it’s better to start with immigration quotas and gradually increase them over time.

I don’t disagree, and I also don’t think that eliminating immigration and travel restrictions conflicts with that. Just because someone is free to cross a border doesn’t mean they will be able to colonize, appropriate, or violate.

I guess I should clarify that the rule only applies to individuals, not corporations or other entities, which are not human and thus do not have human rights.

If I want to move to country X and someone in country X agrees to rent me an apartment, and a country X company agrees to hire me, so be it.

If Apple wants to build an iPhone factory in country X, they can tell them to shove right off, or not. It’s their country, so it’s their choice.

If a bunch of settlers from country I cough**cough walk into country P and start building houses on land they don’t own, they can go to hell too.

Going to Singapore, sure! Welcome. Enjoy the heat. Don’t try to bring any chewing gum with you, though. That’s the way it is today, and I’m not suggesting it be any different.

Anyone who wants to go to Rome, should be able to go to Rome. Anyone who wants to stay in Rome should be able to stay in Rome. If you are in Rome and don’t do as the Romans do, then the Romans will certainly have their way with you.

I mean that is what I’d be in favor of too. But I do think by the time such an agreement could be made, you’d have some kind of unification of most countries type situation going on. All the govts eseesntially handing over the keys to the supreme rulers.

So are humans still on board with the whole homogenization one-world-government thing, or is that decidedly not a good thing or not happening? I don’t really have a preference right now, the one universal set of laws thing seems to mean if society were legit, then, no problem. But it could suck too.

Personally as a white male dude, I have this strange conflict of upbringing where a lot of sci-fi is all “one world UN govt is utopia” and religion is all “The NWO gon’ take over the whole world and bring on the Four Horsemen!” and so getting fed both sides of that concept. Then again I still don’t get why Christians see ‘signs of the end days’ and somehow its bad? Shouldn’t they be like “fuck yeah bring on the end! Let us ride the Death Train to the Apocalypse!”

I certainly think with all the automation going on, we should hurry up and hasten the painful transformations to a largely laborless society as quick as possible, even when the results could probably be bad for me personally: a future me that would live in that society would be loving life.

I’m for one world government but not necessarily full homogenization. Just think of it as a fourth tier above local, state and federal government.

Conservatives have a point in that if you restart the whole system from scratch without doing it in a super careful and planned way, you sometimes get disastrous results.

Think of conservatives (the Keepers of the Rules) as a heuristic that corrects (and usually overcorrects) against new ideas, in case they are overly ambitious or ill-considered (especially if they have little to no theoretical or experimental justification).

Pragmatism activate!

You’re calling me out on something I already pre-emptively called out!

I guess I should explain it more.

OK, so a bunch of individual Israeli settlers physically walk into Palestine, a different country. They cross the border because they have the right to be anywhere on Earth. They don’t bring any contraband with them. They aren’t criminals fleeing justice. Congratulations, they are now physically standing in Palestine.

How exactly do they settle? They still have to obey all local laws. What land are they settling on? It belongs to somebody who is going to get them for trespassing. Gonna bring construction equipment or a pile of lumber to build houses? NOPE. That sure sounds like a construction company that isn’t crossing that border.

OK, so some Palestininan sells them some land, or rents them some apartments. Palestininan companies agree to give them jobs. Congratulations. They don’t necessarily have the right to vote there, unless the Palestinian government grants it to them. They don’t have the right to any privileges or benefits that government might offer. But they do have to obey the local laws and pay taxes and such. They can’t declare their house to be part of Israel any more than you can declare your house to be part of Canada. If a zionist wants to subject themselves to their own oppression by living in Palestine under Palestinian rule, god speed to them. If they somehow try to settle or conquer, though I can’t imagine how, that is still an act of war.

And remember, it goes both ways. Israel couldn’t turn away Palestinians at the border. They would be perfectly free to just walk right into Israel, get jobs, and engage in legal activities there as well. If they don’t have contraband, then in they go. Israel shouldn’t be allowed to say no because I believe people have the right to be where they want to be.

I’m not sure how this contradicts with anything I said? I specifically said that corporations have no right to engage in cross-border activities. In fact, I say they should be even more restricted than they are today. Doesn’t seem like the system of visas and such are doing much to stop them as it is now.

All I am saying is that individual people should have the right to physically move about the earth, regardless of artificial political borders. It should never be a crime to simply be in a particular country. Also, as it is today, people must obey all the laws of the place they are in.

1 Like

Can they bring money in with them? Does that count as contraband? Even physical money that they as individuals own according to the country they’re coming from?

If so I kinda see a loop hole to that whole companies can’t come bit.

I’m really not sure how you get to that one. This reminds me a bit of how we even got to the conception of property. Legal rights? Moral rights? There is just a butt-load of detail to unpack to try to grok what exactly you’re going after here.

Tell me exactly how you see this loophole working. Bill Gates takes billions in a briefcase into country X. What happens next depends entirely on the laws of country X. It might be taxed or even confiscated. But Bill Gates the person has the right to enter country X, so in he goes. OK, now what? Is his money even good in country X? Will someone sell him land? He can get a job, assuming someone hires him. He can’t vote in country X unless they allow it. He can’t start a company in country X unless they allow it. He can’t even import or export more non-contraband goods than he can personally carry across the border without the permission of country X. Country X might not even have a free and open Internet allowing him to conduct digital business. If he conducts black market business he can go to prison in country X. I sure hope country X doesn’t have capital punishment.

Nothing can happen to country X unless they permit it. People being able to freely cross any border and engage in legal activities according to the law of the land they are in does not threaten the sovereignty of any place. That is the crazy conspiracy theory argument that right wing nutjobs make. They believe that illegal immigrants are “conquering” America and voting illegally and taking their jobs. It’s as false here as anywhere else.

Wealthy corporations and people are already doing whatever the fuck they want in whatever country they want. The system of passports and visas are not even a speed bump in their way. However, that same immigration system is a huge roadblock for individual people who are trying to seek refuge, visit friends and family, find jobs, get a better education, acquire goods/services that are not available everywhere (medical care), etc.

Imagine if instead of a boat full of refugees being turned away, as has happened many times in history, countries had no choice but to admit them regardless of their origin. As long as they clear customs, in they go. No need to declare asylum or refugee status or get green cards. Just eliminate all that completely. Everyone is free to be where they want or need to be, and nobody can say otherwise without a damn good reason.

If you are a band, you can book concerts at any venue that will have you without worrying about work visas. If you are an adventurer, you can ride your bicycle from Portugal to Vietnam on a whim. Professionals can get speaking gigs at conferences anywhere without having to deal with the hassle of visas. Journalists can travel to any place there is something to report on. Doctors and other people bringing aid can travel to anywhere people need help.

This is all that I am suggesting. Elimination of visas and passports. Personal freedom to travel and live in any location. Nothing beyond that.

Your goal is noble and I even kinda agree with the sentiment.

See know what my company does? They open up new offices in other countries… like unofficially. We started as a British company and when we wanted to expand into the us, they effectively fired a dude gave him some money (I think a loan) and sent him on a plane.

It wasn’t until years later that they bought us back to make us one company again. They handled the whole he’s selling our shit so we better get paid bit through expiring software licenses.

He found an american who was willing to start a totally separate business under local laws, as an american. Then he started selling our products (let’s pretend I work at apple) he started selling iphones.

Can local country x do anything about a local resident opening effectively a foreign business on their own?

Now I know our current system doesn’t prevent this sort of thing, I see it every day. Does yours?

This is a very bad thing I do not think should be allowed to happen. But as you yourself have shown, it has nothing to do with visas or passports. That system exists today and obviously does nothing to stop this kind of behavior, so removing it would not make that problem any worse. It would make the other problems I mentioned (e.g: refugees) a lot better.

In your example the blame is on the country the dude moved to. They have done a poor job of policing activities occurring within their own borders. Why was the company allowed to operate? Why was the original company allowed to purchase the new company? Why was the company’s money allowed to be sent across the border to the original company? All of this could have been prevented by the government of either country making and enforcing its own laws. If this behavior was illegal, they could have arrested the person who moved there for operating a black market business. They chose not to do so. It’s also never too late to step in. Just shut 'em down now. What’s stopping them? Maybe they don’t care, and they like that activity. In that case, so be it.

One very important thing I have neglected to mention. Allowing free travel across borders without documentation does create a big problem for human trafficking. While people should be free to cross borders if they do so choose, there needs to be a system in place to make absolutely sure that people are actually going willingly. There needs to be an extremely large amount of scrutiny for children and other vulnerable people who are traveling across borders, even more than there is today. Forcing someone to move against their will is just as much a human rights violation, perhaps even more, than not allowing someone to move.

1 Like

I didn’t do a good job explaining the scope of our operation. Doesn’t change much but useful to know.

The UK US bits are only the biggest and most profitable parts of our operation. I didn’t mention the India, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, France, Japan and China, bits, just to name the parts I see in my email all the time. This kinda thing is apparently really easy in the current system, or at least eminently doable.

Any one of those countries has the ability to regulate businesses operating within or across their own borders. They also choose to sign, or not sign, any trade treaties. Allowing individual people to travel and live legally in the place of their choosing would not affect this.

This would result in some global free-market gentrification. The role that whiteness and wealth play across the world in securing better treatment would result in soft-colonialism at a greater rate than what’s going on already. As it is, the ability to travel or move is strongly tied to wealth and privilege. There’s a huge assumption that other governments represent the best interests of their people, or of all their people. You’re seeing this as a huge opportunity for well meaning people, without recognizing the economic impact it would have on the native population, the power imbalances of privilege, or the avenues by which it would result in huge exploitation.

The question of what makes one place “better” than another, is the candy coating on a lot of ugly injustice.

1 Like

White and/or wealthy privileged people are already moving, living, and working wherever they please. They have to do some paperwork in order to do so, but it is because of their privilege and wealth that they are able to do it. Any soft colonialism that will happen as a result of removing immigration restrictions is already going on now. If the small hurdle of paperwork is removed, how much will this colonialism increase? Will the privileged have more desire to move to another country just because this one tiny obstacle has been removed? They could go right now. Are they holding back just because the bureaucracy of immigration is annoying, even though it is easily surmountable for someone in their position?

Meanwhile the immigration system that is such a tiny hurdle for the privileged, is completely insurmountable for the oppressed. Imagine if Mexicans who wanted to come to the US could just walk on over no problem. If it were truly implemented worldwide North Koreans could just walk right into China or South Korea. Eritreans could walk into Ethiopia. Saudi Arabian women could fly to Europe and drive cars. LGBTQ people in Chechnya could escape. Those are just examples that immediately come to mind. Wherever any of these people wanted to go, nobody would be able to turn them away.

1 Like

This won’t solve it. Just make it worse.

Seriously, you have white people beg-packing, and immigration restrictions is the thin line keeping things from getting worse.

1 Like

What the fuck. I guess my fundamentally false assumption was that people would move places out of their own self interest, and not against it. Why the hell would you go to a place, on purpose, if your life there is worse? Given the freedom to choose, why would any person, choose beg-packing? How many people are doing this? How do they even stay alive?

White CisHet Male Harlan Ellison said it best:

The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

2 Likes

It’s the same mentality that creates “ghetto” tour buses going through Bronx http://nypost.com/2013/05/19/politicians-furious-over-bronx-bus-companys-ghetto-tour. Or has people complaining about the lack of English and “service” when on holiday in a
Foreign country.

There are people for whom the lives of others are just a tourist experience. They equate suffering with some kind of virtue. They will beg when they have plenty, because it’s an experience and they have no serious inkling about their impact on the world, and their empathy is atrophied.

4 Likes

Let’s make a fake tour to attract those kinds of people, but actually it’s a trap.