It's especially common among young people that want to display their virtuous radicalism and who haven't ever really had to pay for the bad consequences of anyone's actions.
That's a bit ridiculous. A Syrian Software Engineer shouldn't have to work 1000x more than an American SE to get a job at Google HQ. Let the deserving be decided by their ability for the job rather than their birthplace.
It bothers me how we neglect to work towards a borderless planet. Sure, it wouldn't make sense in terms of economy, politics, and a lot of other things in the beginning, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it and envisioning it, and we even work towards formulating the logistics involved?
In regards to why I advocate it - like I said, the way the system works today, some people have more privilege than the others, and this isn't by choice. We should be trying to bring everyone upto the same datum, not the other way around. While the current visa systems are not the texbook definition of discrimination, we are in some way still limiting people's choices based on the land they were born in.
If we're talking first principles, a human should be able to roam wherever he chooses. Of course, this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not advocating for terrorists to be able to make it through wherever they wish, but I'm sure if thought hard enough, we'll be able to come up with a system that ensures that a couple of groups of terrorist, and a few other kinds of knobheads don't pull their entire nations down. But right now, we're working in the opposite direction.
From the terrorist portion of your comment, it appears you agree that certain actors can be excluded. If we can exclude people from our tribal zones, then nations have strong logical foundations, as they are simply the manifestation of the ability of tribes to exclude others.
They could, but they'd be dating back to the principles that were prevalent when various species of the Homo genus existed. When Sapiens were a threat to the Neanderthals, the Neanderthals a threat to the habilis etc. They were thought of as threats for similar reasons as you mentioned; one being more privileged than the other, which led to an insecurity.
A lot of factors such as the geography, and the natural resources that companions the land play a huge factor in the well-being of the society. From what you're suggesting, I get the idea that you want that to remain as a given privilege that should only be cherished by the people who were born around it. That a human born in terrible conditions is a threat to the more affluent, and it's resources and security, solely because the latter was born in a better habitat.This doesn't seem very different to me than the ideologies adopted by the tribes and the cavemen that date back to tens of thousands of years.
I hope I'm not coming off too strong with my words. The language is my barrier, and I've been known to go off on a tangent sometimes due to that. I hope you understand.
That said, I expect there are more robust philosophical arguments. I'm no philosopher, but I'll take a stab at it. Consider the prisoner's dilemma. If everyone acts solely in their own self-interest, it's worse for the whole than if people act cooperatively. Human civilization can be seen the same way. An individual might elevate themselves by acting purely out of self-interest, but on the average we're better off acting cooperatively. So I would suggest that not only is there a moral imperative to strive toward equality, doing so will also improve quality of life overall.
And of course, that's natural; people DO value their own well-being and that of their families and friends (and especially children) more than that of strangers. It's a very rare person who's willing to completely sacrifice their own standard of living in the name of global utilitarianism. (Mother Teresa comes to mind, but that's about it...) But it's also pretty rare for a person not to feel any selfless compassion for others either; it's just harder when one feels one's own needs aren't being met.
So maybe that's the real solution to your problem: find a way to address people's needs without resorting to a zero-sum mentality. When people feel they're getting by alright, they will naturally be less begrudging of others. Easier said than done of course, but not impossible. Much more difficult when the focus is on this zero-sum game instead though.
The crux of the issue. I appreciate you taking the time, and employing the insight, to identify it. In my experience of such discussions, few do.
It would seem not, or this conversation wouldn't have played out the way it has. I'd certainly be interested to see a defense of this claim that didn't rely on one's interlocutor sharing one's own moral precepts in order to cohere.
I'm not saying a borderless planet would work out; at least not anytime soon. But we should at least be working towards it.
We know that AI could go bizzarlly wrong, but we still work towards achieving better results everyday.
The point I'm making is that not everyone agrees with you about what's morally right. In fact, most people in the US, at least, do not. If you want to effectively advance your cause, it is worth finding an argument for your claims which does not rely on moral precepts your interlocutor may not share.
As a side note, likening the existence of national borders to the institution of slavery is probably not such an argument.
It's not a surprise to me that it's most people in the US that are against the idea of this, because they fear that instead of the datum of other countries moving up, that of USA will go down. This insecurity always annoys me. But take everything I say with a grain of salt because I do not consider myself patriotic whatsoever, and in that sense, my thoughts are in the opposite direction as those of Americans, who, through personal observation are the most patriotic people I've come across.
I agree with you that while there are some appeals to self-interest that support a goal of equality, fundamentally it is an issue of morality. And I agree with you that you can't logic someone from one moral framework to another. But I would add that almost everyone does have some amount of 'maximize the greater good' built into their moral framework already, so the only logical way to work toward this is to focus on the variables that will add weight to that side of the equation.
Another thing is the free flow of capital. Why can money have open borders but people can't? Anyone who advocates for closed borders should also be in favor of capital flow controls.
(Personally i m not pro-open-borders as of yet)
For a politician, it would make sense to advocate for easy capital inflows, somewhat controlled capital outflows and highly selective immigration process.
One hopes that when you hire a Syrian software engineer, both you and they will benefit. I'd certainly prefer to hire a good Syrian software engineer than a mediocre American one (and a good American one than a mediocre Syrian one, naturally), if we're hiring someone anyway.
What I was responding to was how there may be no responsibility for the American to renounce his privilege such that the Syrian has an easier time becoming a possible candidate (Both in skill set as well as logistically). Additionally, it may even be irrational for the American to do so if we consider them as adversarial actors (In competition, unlike when recruiting co-workers).
Please understand my commentary here is simply in response to the equally extreme logic applied by the grandparent (A world of no nations/borders being optimal) and by no means constitutes my complete opinions on immigration, visas, and the like. We can hopefully elevate the discussion above, allowing immigrants only out of charity, to more rigorous reasons.
I never mentioned about Syrian having it easier if the native candidate is more deserving, as you seem to claim I did. A lot of your comment has gone over my head due to it's convolutedness.
In regards to your second paragraph, I know you didn't and I hopefully didn't insinuate that you did. I'll try to clarify: Moving from the current system would be done by the American (Person of privilege) helping the Syrian compete for his job, which the American logically may not be interested in, given that it threatens his or her stability.
My apologies, again, if you believe my comment was convoluted. I can rephrase if you direct me to what specifically was difficult.
Wrong framing, though. My adversary isn't some other worker. It's the guy who hires workers, works less or not at all, and takes home the profits.
Most people think of SS and other entitlements as being something they have earned and they don't want them shared with others.
Everyone wants a handout. Most people just want to pretend like they earned it.
You can even go into SSA.gov and see how much you have "earned".
In my mind, this is fairer than the US system, but there is a good case to be made that keeping elements of a "contributory" system helps to maintain political support for the welfare state among people who are a bit more, um, selfish.
(An interesting piece I read a while ago that describes how the "contributory" nature of Australia's social security system in the 1940s was actually just a cover for a general tax increase: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/berg-chifleys-politica...)
So I'm curious: can you move to Australia at 64, work for one year, retire, and receive a full income from social security?
To collect the pension you simply need to be lawfully living in the country (e.g. citizen or permanent resident status), have made NZ your primary/main country of residence (usually by living and working here), and you must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20, of which five of the years must have been since the aged of 50 years.
If the above applies to you, you should sign on and start getting your $792.34 per fortnight :-)
What we call "super" you'd call KiwiSaver, except over here it's mandatory. I suspect the NZ use of the term "superannuation" is probably closer to the original/traditional use of the term.
I'm certainly no expert, but that sounds more like a description of an IRA or 401K, I think.
As far as I know, the social security program in the US isn't actually structured in such a way that each person's SS taxes are going into an individual investment account under their own name (despite the "how much I've earned" statements which might seem to suggest this).
In fact, the SS taxes being collected right now from you and the entire current generation of earners, are going directly to the current generation of retirees.
So rather than being a career-long savings/investment scheme where your own money comes back to you at the end, it is actually implemented as a wealth transfer scheme from the current generation of earners to the current generation of retirees.
Some years the fund might book a surplus (more taxes raised than benefits paid) and in some years a deficit.
But I agree that it seems to be a common view (or perhaps just metaphor) that people's own SS taxes are being accrued against their name for later payback as benefits. But as far as I can tell, social security has never worked that way and wasn't designed to.
It's not structured that way, but you do need to 'earn credits' to establish eligibility for benefits, and the benefits are calculated with a formula based on the amount of your wages that were subject to social security tax; and the official name is old age insurance. It certainly feels like it's retirement insurance that you pay into while you're working, and get the benefits should you live long enough.
I don't think any Millennial pays into Social Security under the delusion that they will ever get anything back. The program is on track to be insolvent once it's done serving the generation currently in power.
I suppose you're attempting to imply that people who have thought about the consequences, or who do care, or who are old people who have had to pay for the bad consequences of people's actions, are unlikely to agree. Is there a reason, is there evidence, to believe that much more interesting claim? Or is this merely an accusation of "virtue signaling"?