Utilitarian arguments are not always great, but it is a simple one here: I don't want these Arkansas guys as neighbors so I'm glad they have their own place far away from me.
These places generally attract trashy people. It was revealed recently that the guy who set up this community (Aarvoll) used to create porn with his (now ex) wife who he had 4 children with. I would not be surprised if the other people involved are freaks as well.
Maybe not, but it shows a sense of agency and commitment. Much more admirable than the people who think "white advocacy" is complaining on the internet.
I'm sympathetic in theory to the idea of national divorce, but I give it < 5% it would happen. For better or worse, most Americans are pretty attached to the USA as it is geographically.
It’s already happening and reborn neoliberals out here cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together and go back to prewar Classical Liberalism in a hopelessly fragmented and rapidly deteriorating society. Nothing sacred about the United States as presently constituted, its economy, form of government, and current borders. It’s become an empire as many other countries before it and will decline and eventually perish as all others have before and will in the future. The very economic and social policies advocated by neoliberalism are accelerating this process.
I didn't see the word "tribalism" anywhere in this article. Hmmm. Isn't tribalism the "natural" state of all people? "People like me." Back when I was working at AT&T I was the only anglo on a large team of Indians, Mostly good guys. But, joking about their daughters dating Americans of any color got them riled up. No, a good boy from India was the only option they wanted their daughters to have. And, they got wives from India. Tribalism is embedded in our genes.
Also, there's a fundamental question: what is white? Not an easy thing to figure out.
Indians are tribal about who they (or their kids) marry, and who they invite into their homes. Indians are not particularly tribal about who they work with or do business with, who lives in their neighborhood, nor who is part of their polity. Though on both these counts, Indians (in 2025) are getting closer to the mean (less tribal about coupling, more tribal about the other stuff), so inching toward western ways.
Is this thing distasteful to me? Ban it. Don’t let people do it. Force them to stop.
Is this behavior something I like? Encourage it. Maybe force it.
What differentiates “libertarians” from all others IMO are people who say “yuck, that’s awful behavior! But it doesn’t mean I get to force you to stop. It’s none of my business.”
Is a community based on exclusion specifically on race pretty gross? Sure. Doesn’t mean I have the right to stop them.
They’re out there building their own (and new) thing that didn’t exist before. Power to them. Leave them be. Any other group associating by any other common trait or characteristic could have (and can) do the exact same thing if they so choose.
I disagree with Hanania on the immigration bit. One doesn’t have to be racist to support a regulated process of immigration. Just like any other “club”, club members get to decide who is allowed to join.
I think Richard's point is that a polity isn't like a club. If a club decides to change its rules by simple majority vote, that's things working properly. Almost no one thinks governments should be allowed to pass any law they want as long as a majority support it. That's why we have a constitution, courts, and separated federal powers.
Agreed. Minority rights are protected in manners that are separate from majority votes. But nowhere should there be an expectation by a foreigner of any right to be in any host country.
Right, you can't give non-citizens all the same rights as citizens because they don't have the same obligations. Pro-immigration folks aren't primarily (or shouldn't be) arguing that it's immoral, inefficient, etc. not to give rights to non-citizens. Rather, they argue that it's bad to needlessly prevent non-citizens from becoming citizens.
I think there's a clear pragmatic moral case for the US government prioritizing citizens over foreign nationals, but it's much less clear that there is a non-bigoted moral case for prioritizing current citizens over future citizens.
But isn't immigration restriction inherently restrictive of free association? It's basically governments telling individuals who they can and can't associate with.
I support some amount of immigration restriction today on practical grounds, but it's not ideal and I don't think we should have it in the future. Post-AGI when all the economic concerns of open borders are eliminated, people should be able to live wherever and with whomever, regardless of national identity.
It is somewhat restrictive, yes, but only insofar as the location of where your desired association occurs. If you want to associate with someone from country X, there is nothing preventing you from going to country X to associate with them (at least from this country’s POV; whether country X allows you in is for country X to decide).
If there is no restriction on immigration, then why have borders? Or “country”. I suppose that is the “humanist” POV….”we are all simply part of the human race”. I see no practical application for such a principle.
If you value freedom and autonomy, as I do, then any world where the places people can be and the people they can be with are restricted based on where someone is born is suboptimal.
Like I said, I'm not saying we should just go full open borders today. Cultures and peoples are very different and allowing all of them to live together where there's scarcity is asking for conflict. So on utilitarian grounds, it's probably fine to say no to open borders today, even if it restricts human freedom.
But extrapolate out to a world where we've achieved post-scarcity, which I think is happening sooner than most people think thanks to AGI (assuming it doesn't kill us all). In that world, how is it anything but a restriction on people's freedom and destiny to decide where they can and can't be?
I also value freedom and autonomy, but not as abstract concepts, and only in real world applications. With that in mind, there are limits to freedom and autonomy. My freedom to associate has to be weighed with the next guy’s freedom from such association. And vice versa.
I can’t speak to the future likelihood of a world without scarcity. But even with such an eventuality, abundance alone does not obviate a desire or preference for disparate culture, or traditions, or mores. Those are legitimate wants even in a world without unmet needs.
I agree with the first paragraph. Regarding the second paragraph, a couple things:
1. Open borders may reduce cultural diversity, but does that outweigh freedom of movement and association? It would seem to me that the pain caused by not being able to live where you want with whom you want is greater than the pain caused by not having enough cultural diversity in the world. And people generally care more about their own freedom to do these things than the abstract value of cultural diversity.
2. You can still have plenty of diversity under open borders. People have differences in their personalities and interests and they'll sort themselves into communities that align with those personalities and interests. This alone can can give us plenty of diversity in memes and mores. Think about the internet. It's essentially an open borders place. Anyone can go to any part of the online world they wish to go to (for the most part). And yet, we have a tremendous diversity of online communities with unique slang, references, memes, etc. Why? Because of self-sorting.
Re: 1. I really have no basis to speculate upon whether people would value the freedom to associate with non citizens more or less than their preferences for cultural diversity or autonomy where they live (in a hypothetical world of abundance and no unmet needs).
Re: 2. I agree the virtual world has open borders. But I see no reason to assume that the physical world would exhibit identical characteristics.
To put it as bluntly as possible, why does someone's desire to live across the street from me outweigh my desire that he not live across the street from me? Find me the citation in any of the great statements of human rights that says anyone enjoys the right to go anywhere they want and associate with anyone they please regardless of the rights of those already there to not associate with them?
>If there is no restriction on immigration, then why have borders? Or “country”. I suppose that is the “humanist” POV….”we are all simply part of the human race”. I see no practical application for such a principle.
America had open borders before 1882, and open borders for everyone except Chinese before 1917.
I don’t know the precise historical reason why border policy changed in 1882 or 1917. But having changed, would there be a reason to revert back to a pre 1882 or pre 1917 position?
If Americans want to hire, rent to, or otherwise voluntarily associate with foreigners that's reason enough even if you don't consider the restriction on foreigners liberty.
But no country owes any duty to the “liberty” of non-citizens. In fact, non-citizens should only be allowed into a country at the pleasure of that country.
I don't think AGI is going to create any more land, Unless it can convince us all to live on top of each other, there's going to be a certain amount of conflict.
People have a hard time saying yes they are racists, and they are doing nothing wrong. People want their morality tales to be simple and straightforward. Racism = bad. Racist does thing = bad. It causes cognite dissonance to recognize that sometimes unvirtuous people can do something good.
Hard no. You should not have to degrade yourself at the feet of skydaddy to secure basic freedom of association rights. And if you say "all you have to do is pretend," remember Kurt Vonnegut's saying "you are what you pretend to be."
I don’t see the “believing in borders is just obviously racism” argument. You claim that all cultures of the world are convening on America’s so the cultural objections must be baseless. But if all cultures were like America’s, ppl wouldn’t be risking their lives and leaving their families behind to get the hell out of those places to come to America. So that claim just seems obviously false. It actually seems obvious that much of the world is radically different from America. You also claim that even ppl from diff backgrounds assimilate into western culture in a few generations. Well first off that’s a long time. Ur sacrificing the optimal well-being of ur own kids and maybe grandkids. Look at the academics in public school districts where 200 languages are spoken (like Seattle) - very low. It’s not easy to teach quickly in 200 languages. How about the rape rates of males from Pakistan, Afghanistan? How many European women and girls should be raped in order for Europeans not to be told they’re racist, whilst they wait around for these men to assimilate to western values around rape? And even if u look ahead in time - some cultures assimilate and succeed rapidly no matter which country they immigrate to, while other cultures are at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchies decades upon decades in every place they go to. The cultural and linguistic arguments also explain why there are diff countries that have the same race - like as an American, I don’t want to merge with Canada just bc they have the same race, nor would I want millions of Canadians running across our border just bc our economy is stronger. It’s got nothing to do with race. Brexit wasn’t about race - all the EU countries are majority white. Or take the EU generally - they didn’t just say “oh we’re all basically the same let’s just be one country.” They don’t feel they are all the same, and they have the same race and are all “western.” But tell a Frenchman that he’s culturally indistinguishable from a German or Pollack and see if he agrees. There are clear and strong cultural (and linguistic) differences between European countries, and each country’s desire to maintain its cultural identity as against other European countries is not about racism. Why can’t the same be true with America? Why can’t it be the case that ppl from diff cultures may have radically different…cultures? And that blending them all together might not always be optimal for everyone in every way - without skin color having anything to do with it?
In schools teacher would insist that if you invite more than half of class, you must invite all children in class. That rule is to prevent shunning.
Amish only enclave OK. Jewish only safe spaces - OK. White-only and Protestant-only Safe Spaces -OK. But no to Whites-only Enclaves or Christian-only Spaces.
Same reason to ban Shunning or Redlining. If more than 50% people is OK then it must be available to all.
There is a line drawing issue here - wouldn't the same logic apply to a group of 49% of people? I don't think there's anything magic about the specific 50% value, and 49% seems close enough to warrant the same kind of rule. But if so, then how about 48%? 47%? Et cetera all the way down to any arbitrary percentage.
I guess what I'd be interested in learning is what does being "white" mean to these people? Why do they feel like they need an enclave instead of where they were previously living? If it's for good reasons, then power to them. If it's for racism, then fuck 'em.
How do you plan to keep liberalism/libertarianism with open borders? Statistical models show migrant groups are likely to reduce libertarianism, even the more "elite human capital" ones
By being not very libertarian, for one. Also the Hispanics there are majority European in heritage rather than Amerindian. On average, Latinos with more Amerindian heritage have more collectivist cultural values.
I think the migration process needs to select for ideology (with evidence, documentation) and also net taxpayer status. Someone talked about requiring a conversion process like Judaism does. Israel lets in converts without an ethnic connection, but the process to convert can be intense. Maybe it can be similar to come here.
They don't have open borders, but their borders are more open than American borders. And they have lower taxes and smaller governments than the US and simpler codes of taxation etc.
(I'm not sure if Hong Kong after 1997 is a good model, but you can have a look at before.
And yes, Hong Kong didn't get to make its own laws, but you can still look at public opinion.)
Btw, you can have borders open for people to come and live and work. But there's no requirement that you give them the vote just as easily.
The issue with letting people just live and work is that there is birthright citizenship, and when you don't, you get additional ethical questions about dealing with second and possibly third generations. Their will end up affecting your sovereignty if you don't end up deporting them at some point, which is why I think it's best to have a rigorous process to get in.
Singapore, from what I last read, tries to maintain its ethnic balance with its immigration policy. Hong Kong, I have to research more too.
"Voters in Missouri and West Virginia try to tell New York City and San Francisco, who are welcoming towards new arrivals, that their preferences must be overruled in the name of national unity."
I don't think flyover state voters would care, if the new arrivals stayed in NYC or SF. Inevitably, a lot of them get fed up with unaffordable housing, crime, and mediocre schools, and they seek greener pastures. For better or worse, the sweet spot of affordable housing + low crime + ok schools is often white working class towns in flyover states. That's how my MIL's town in Iowa went from 75% white in 2000 to majority Latino in 2020 (nearly all 1st gen immigrants arriving from welcoming Southern California, not directly from Latin America). I know Hanania downplayed the economics angle, but when you introduce a lot of manual laborers into a town where the average person is a manual laborer (whether farm, factory, or Walmart) it tends to lead to resentment. When the people look different and speak another language, human nature tends to amplify that resentment.
This seems to be to be just a form of the old American adage: ‘Live and let Live.’ I think we could all adopt a bit more of that attitude. We’re going to need it to get through this fraught moment without resorting to stupid violence and letting Trump rule us like a la Cosa Nostra crime family would.
>These analogies have all kinds of problems. A nation is obviously not private property. If it were, then American citizens themselves would have no rights whenever they found themselves outvoted. The majority could decide that since you are in “their” house, they can put any conditions they want on you living there. Anyone who does anything the government doesn’t approve of could be banned from public roads.
The logic here is obviously flawed. Citizens of liberal democracies have negative rights that can't be infringed upon by majority vote or the government, and are often offered protections that extend to them when they're living in foreign countries. The totality of these rights are not extended to non-citizens, especially not to immigrants who live in the country without the consent of the government. These rights are guarded in exchange for foregoing other freedoms. Your right to do want you want on private property is limited in all liberal democracies. As far as I know there are no libertarian paradises where you do can do anything you want at anytime as long as it doesn't violate NAP.
The only way this logic works is if you remove the citizen/non-citizen distinction and decide governments should offer these liberties and protections to any possible person who could at some point live in the United States. At which point, you can't--as you have done-- advocate for bombing people in other countries without due process. This is precisely the reason that killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was controversial.
> The only way this logic works is if you remove the citizen/non-citizen distinction and decide governments should offer these liberties and protections to any possible person who could at some point live in the United States.
No, you don't. You can preserve the citizen/non-citizen distinction for people present in the territory of the US while giving them all a core set of (human) rights and protections, and graded rights to different categories of non-citizens.
The US immigration program functions like this currently, and I don't see an intrinsic flaw in it (other than having rigid per-country immigration quotas, but that's a separate story). You have people living as students who are not allowed to work for pay, people working while not having the right to permanently reside, people having the right to permanently reside without the right to vote, etc. All of these visa-holders and immigrants voluntarily enter into a contract with the US government (and by extension with American society), which either party is free to dissolve at will.
Utilitarian arguments are not always great, but it is a simple one here: I don't want these Arkansas guys as neighbors so I'm glad they have their own place far away from me.
These places generally attract trashy people. It was revealed recently that the guy who set up this community (Aarvoll) used to create porn with his (now ex) wife who he had 4 children with. I would not be surprised if the other people involved are freaks as well.
Setting up ethnic enclaves isn't exactly Elite Human Capital behavior.
Maybe not, but it shows a sense of agency and commitment. Much more admirable than the people who think "white advocacy" is complaining on the internet.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GxSf1maaIAM9hgx?format=jpg&name=900x900
Fair enough. I disagree with what they're doing but they're not hurting anyone so I can't hate on them too much.
At the end of the day, modern “white supremacy” is nothing more than a giant scam.
They don’t want you or Hanania as neighbors either. We need to break up America anyway.
No, we can just coexist even if we don't like each other. That's freedom of association.
Coexisting in separate polities is the ultimate solution.
Have you heard of federalism? Or the concept of subsidiarity?
Yup, by golly, I sure have. It can’t exist in contemporary American society with under neoliberalism.
I'm sympathetic in theory to the idea of national divorce, but I give it < 5% it would happen. For better or worse, most Americans are pretty attached to the USA as it is geographically.
It’s already happening and reborn neoliberals out here cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together and go back to prewar Classical Liberalism in a hopelessly fragmented and rapidly deteriorating society. Nothing sacred about the United States as presently constituted, its economy, form of government, and current borders. It’s become an empire as many other countries before it and will decline and eventually perish as all others have before and will in the future. The very economic and social policies advocated by neoliberalism are accelerating this process.
I didn't see the word "tribalism" anywhere in this article. Hmmm. Isn't tribalism the "natural" state of all people? "People like me." Back when I was working at AT&T I was the only anglo on a large team of Indians, Mostly good guys. But, joking about their daughters dating Americans of any color got them riled up. No, a good boy from India was the only option they wanted their daughters to have. And, they got wives from India. Tribalism is embedded in our genes.
Also, there's a fundamental question: what is white? Not an easy thing to figure out.
Indians are tribal about who they (or their kids) marry, and who they invite into their homes. Indians are not particularly tribal about who they work with or do business with, who lives in their neighborhood, nor who is part of their polity. Though on both these counts, Indians (in 2025) are getting closer to the mean (less tribal about coupling, more tribal about the other stuff), so inching toward western ways.
Our gracious host already acknowledged that whiteness can be pretty vague and lies in the eyes of the beholder.
For almost everybody, morality means:
Is this thing distasteful to me? Ban it. Don’t let people do it. Force them to stop.
Is this behavior something I like? Encourage it. Maybe force it.
What differentiates “libertarians” from all others IMO are people who say “yuck, that’s awful behavior! But it doesn’t mean I get to force you to stop. It’s none of my business.”
Is a community based on exclusion specifically on race pretty gross? Sure. Doesn’t mean I have the right to stop them.
Many people can be libertarian by your definition in some aspects.
Eg few people want to ban others from eating yucky food.
Banning people from eating foods is a major pastime of busybodies everywhere and has been for thousands of years.
Or getting a questionable haircut or wearing ugly clothing.
They’re out there building their own (and new) thing that didn’t exist before. Power to them. Leave them be. Any other group associating by any other common trait or characteristic could have (and can) do the exact same thing if they so choose.
I disagree with Hanania on the immigration bit. One doesn’t have to be racist to support a regulated process of immigration. Just like any other “club”, club members get to decide who is allowed to join.
I think Richard's point is that a polity isn't like a club. If a club decides to change its rules by simple majority vote, that's things working properly. Almost no one thinks governments should be allowed to pass any law they want as long as a majority support it. That's why we have a constitution, courts, and separated federal powers.
Agreed. Minority rights are protected in manners that are separate from majority votes. But nowhere should there be an expectation by a foreigner of any right to be in any host country.
Right, you can't give non-citizens all the same rights as citizens because they don't have the same obligations. Pro-immigration folks aren't primarily (or shouldn't be) arguing that it's immoral, inefficient, etc. not to give rights to non-citizens. Rather, they argue that it's bad to needlessly prevent non-citizens from becoming citizens.
I think there's a clear pragmatic moral case for the US government prioritizing citizens over foreign nationals, but it's much less clear that there is a non-bigoted moral case for prioritizing current citizens over future citizens.
But isn't immigration restriction inherently restrictive of free association? It's basically governments telling individuals who they can and can't associate with.
I support some amount of immigration restriction today on practical grounds, but it's not ideal and I don't think we should have it in the future. Post-AGI when all the economic concerns of open borders are eliminated, people should be able to live wherever and with whomever, regardless of national identity.
It is somewhat restrictive, yes, but only insofar as the location of where your desired association occurs. If you want to associate with someone from country X, there is nothing preventing you from going to country X to associate with them (at least from this country’s POV; whether country X allows you in is for country X to decide).
If there is no restriction on immigration, then why have borders? Or “country”. I suppose that is the “humanist” POV….”we are all simply part of the human race”. I see no practical application for such a principle.
If you value freedom and autonomy, as I do, then any world where the places people can be and the people they can be with are restricted based on where someone is born is suboptimal.
Like I said, I'm not saying we should just go full open borders today. Cultures and peoples are very different and allowing all of them to live together where there's scarcity is asking for conflict. So on utilitarian grounds, it's probably fine to say no to open borders today, even if it restricts human freedom.
But extrapolate out to a world where we've achieved post-scarcity, which I think is happening sooner than most people think thanks to AGI (assuming it doesn't kill us all). In that world, how is it anything but a restriction on people's freedom and destiny to decide where they can and can't be?
I also value freedom and autonomy, but not as abstract concepts, and only in real world applications. With that in mind, there are limits to freedom and autonomy. My freedom to associate has to be weighed with the next guy’s freedom from such association. And vice versa.
I can’t speak to the future likelihood of a world without scarcity. But even with such an eventuality, abundance alone does not obviate a desire or preference for disparate culture, or traditions, or mores. Those are legitimate wants even in a world without unmet needs.
I agree with the first paragraph. Regarding the second paragraph, a couple things:
1. Open borders may reduce cultural diversity, but does that outweigh freedom of movement and association? It would seem to me that the pain caused by not being able to live where you want with whom you want is greater than the pain caused by not having enough cultural diversity in the world. And people generally care more about their own freedom to do these things than the abstract value of cultural diversity.
2. You can still have plenty of diversity under open borders. People have differences in their personalities and interests and they'll sort themselves into communities that align with those personalities and interests. This alone can can give us plenty of diversity in memes and mores. Think about the internet. It's essentially an open borders place. Anyone can go to any part of the online world they wish to go to (for the most part). And yet, we have a tremendous diversity of online communities with unique slang, references, memes, etc. Why? Because of self-sorting.
Re: 1. I really have no basis to speculate upon whether people would value the freedom to associate with non citizens more or less than their preferences for cultural diversity or autonomy where they live (in a hypothetical world of abundance and no unmet needs).
Re: 2. I agree the virtual world has open borders. But I see no reason to assume that the physical world would exhibit identical characteristics.
To put it as bluntly as possible, why does someone's desire to live across the street from me outweigh my desire that he not live across the street from me? Find me the citation in any of the great statements of human rights that says anyone enjoys the right to go anywhere they want and associate with anyone they please regardless of the rights of those already there to not associate with them?
>If there is no restriction on immigration, then why have borders? Or “country”. I suppose that is the “humanist” POV….”we are all simply part of the human race”. I see no practical application for such a principle.
America had open borders before 1882, and open borders for everyone except Chinese before 1917.
I don’t know the precise historical reason why border policy changed in 1882 or 1917. But having changed, would there be a reason to revert back to a pre 1882 or pre 1917 position?
If Americans want to hire, rent to, or otherwise voluntarily associate with foreigners that's reason enough even if you don't consider the restriction on foreigners liberty.
But no country owes any duty to the “liberty” of non-citizens. In fact, non-citizens should only be allowed into a country at the pleasure of that country.
I don't think AGI is going to create any more land, Unless it can convince us all to live on top of each other, there's going to be a certain amount of conflict.
It can create new islands in the ocean and terraform other planets for us.
When it does, we can talk.
People have a hard time saying yes they are racists, and they are doing nothing wrong. People want their morality tales to be simple and straightforward. Racism = bad. Racist does thing = bad. It causes cognite dissonance to recognize that sometimes unvirtuous people can do something good.
In this case, it's not 'good'. It's just acceptable.
Just like Stalin eating potatoes isn't good. But it isn't evil either.
These people need to come up with a religious justification fast. No one moaning about the lack of black Amish.
Hard no. You should not have to degrade yourself at the feet of skydaddy to secure basic freedom of association rights. And if you say "all you have to do is pretend," remember Kurt Vonnegut's saying "you are what you pretend to be."
Forget race, religion, and geographical origin: I want to belong to the community of *those who respect Freedom of Association*.
I don’t see the “believing in borders is just obviously racism” argument. You claim that all cultures of the world are convening on America’s so the cultural objections must be baseless. But if all cultures were like America’s, ppl wouldn’t be risking their lives and leaving their families behind to get the hell out of those places to come to America. So that claim just seems obviously false. It actually seems obvious that much of the world is radically different from America. You also claim that even ppl from diff backgrounds assimilate into western culture in a few generations. Well first off that’s a long time. Ur sacrificing the optimal well-being of ur own kids and maybe grandkids. Look at the academics in public school districts where 200 languages are spoken (like Seattle) - very low. It’s not easy to teach quickly in 200 languages. How about the rape rates of males from Pakistan, Afghanistan? How many European women and girls should be raped in order for Europeans not to be told they’re racist, whilst they wait around for these men to assimilate to western values around rape? And even if u look ahead in time - some cultures assimilate and succeed rapidly no matter which country they immigrate to, while other cultures are at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchies decades upon decades in every place they go to. The cultural and linguistic arguments also explain why there are diff countries that have the same race - like as an American, I don’t want to merge with Canada just bc they have the same race, nor would I want millions of Canadians running across our border just bc our economy is stronger. It’s got nothing to do with race. Brexit wasn’t about race - all the EU countries are majority white. Or take the EU generally - they didn’t just say “oh we’re all basically the same let’s just be one country.” They don’t feel they are all the same, and they have the same race and are all “western.” But tell a Frenchman that he’s culturally indistinguishable from a German or Pollack and see if he agrees. There are clear and strong cultural (and linguistic) differences between European countries, and each country’s desire to maintain its cultural identity as against other European countries is not about racism. Why can’t the same be true with America? Why can’t it be the case that ppl from diff cultures may have radically different…cultures? And that blending them all together might not always be optimal for everyone in every way - without skin color having anything to do with it?
I oppose White-only enclaves.
In schools teacher would insist that if you invite more than half of class, you must invite all children in class. That rule is to prevent shunning.
Amish only enclave OK. Jewish only safe spaces - OK. White-only and Protestant-only Safe Spaces -OK. But no to Whites-only Enclaves or Christian-only Spaces.
Same reason to ban Shunning or Redlining. If more than 50% people is OK then it must be available to all.
I think I like this argument, but I'm not sure.
There is a line drawing issue here - wouldn't the same logic apply to a group of 49% of people? I don't think there's anything magic about the specific 50% value, and 49% seems close enough to warrant the same kind of rule. But if so, then how about 48%? 47%? Et cetera all the way down to any arbitrary percentage.
I guess what I'd be interested in learning is what does being "white" mean to these people? Why do they feel like they need an enclave instead of where they were previously living? If it's for good reasons, then power to them. If it's for racism, then fuck 'em.
If universities can have non-white areas, what's the problem?
How do you plan to keep liberalism/libertarianism with open borders? Statistical models show migrant groups are likely to reduce libertarianism, even the more "elite human capital" ones
Open borders but only if you're liberal.
Sure, with plenty of evidence and/or an intense process (kind of like converting to Judaism to become an Israeli citizen).
How did Trump win the majority of the Hispanic vote in Florida and Texas?
By being not very libertarian, for one. Also the Hispanics there are majority European in heritage rather than Amerindian. On average, Latinos with more Amerindian heritage have more collectivist cultural values.
I think the migration process needs to select for ideology (with evidence, documentation) and also net taxpayer status. Someone talked about requiring a conversion process like Judaism does. Israel lets in converts without an ethnic connection, but the process to convert can be intense. Maybe it can be similar to come here.
You can look at Hong Kong and Singapore.
They don't have open borders, but their borders are more open than American borders. And they have lower taxes and smaller governments than the US and simpler codes of taxation etc.
(I'm not sure if Hong Kong after 1997 is a good model, but you can have a look at before.
And yes, Hong Kong didn't get to make its own laws, but you can still look at public opinion.)
Btw, you can have borders open for people to come and live and work. But there's no requirement that you give them the vote just as easily.
The issue with letting people just live and work is that there is birthright citizenship, and when you don't, you get additional ethical questions about dealing with second and possibly third generations. Their will end up affecting your sovereignty if you don't end up deporting them at some point, which is why I think it's best to have a rigorous process to get in.
Singapore, from what I last read, tries to maintain its ethnic balance with its immigration policy. Hong Kong, I have to research more too.
"Voters in Missouri and West Virginia try to tell New York City and San Francisco, who are welcoming towards new arrivals, that their preferences must be overruled in the name of national unity."
I don't think flyover state voters would care, if the new arrivals stayed in NYC or SF. Inevitably, a lot of them get fed up with unaffordable housing, crime, and mediocre schools, and they seek greener pastures. For better or worse, the sweet spot of affordable housing + low crime + ok schools is often white working class towns in flyover states. That's how my MIL's town in Iowa went from 75% white in 2000 to majority Latino in 2020 (nearly all 1st gen immigrants arriving from welcoming Southern California, not directly from Latin America). I know Hanania downplayed the economics angle, but when you introduce a lot of manual laborers into a town where the average person is a manual laborer (whether farm, factory, or Walmart) it tends to lead to resentment. When the people look different and speak another language, human nature tends to amplify that resentment.
"Per Capita" is fine for not wanting to live around Negroes, but not share of economic output.
Not sure what point you're trying to make.
This seems to be to be just a form of the old American adage: ‘Live and let Live.’ I think we could all adopt a bit more of that attitude. We’re going to need it to get through this fraught moment without resorting to stupid violence and letting Trump rule us like a la Cosa Nostra crime family would.
>These analogies have all kinds of problems. A nation is obviously not private property. If it were, then American citizens themselves would have no rights whenever they found themselves outvoted. The majority could decide that since you are in “their” house, they can put any conditions they want on you living there. Anyone who does anything the government doesn’t approve of could be banned from public roads.
The logic here is obviously flawed. Citizens of liberal democracies have negative rights that can't be infringed upon by majority vote or the government, and are often offered protections that extend to them when they're living in foreign countries. The totality of these rights are not extended to non-citizens, especially not to immigrants who live in the country without the consent of the government. These rights are guarded in exchange for foregoing other freedoms. Your right to do want you want on private property is limited in all liberal democracies. As far as I know there are no libertarian paradises where you do can do anything you want at anytime as long as it doesn't violate NAP.
The only way this logic works is if you remove the citizen/non-citizen distinction and decide governments should offer these liberties and protections to any possible person who could at some point live in the United States. At which point, you can't--as you have done-- advocate for bombing people in other countries without due process. This is precisely the reason that killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was controversial.
> The only way this logic works is if you remove the citizen/non-citizen distinction and decide governments should offer these liberties and protections to any possible person who could at some point live in the United States.
No, you don't. You can preserve the citizen/non-citizen distinction for people present in the territory of the US while giving them all a core set of (human) rights and protections, and graded rights to different categories of non-citizens.
The US immigration program functions like this currently, and I don't see an intrinsic flaw in it (other than having rigid per-country immigration quotas, but that's a separate story). You have people living as students who are not allowed to work for pay, people working while not having the right to permanently reside, people having the right to permanently reside without the right to vote, etc. All of these visa-holders and immigrants voluntarily enter into a contract with the US government (and by extension with American society), which either party is free to dissolve at will.
Open borders means the streets/roads are owned communally by the entire world; in reality, they are rightfully owned by the natives.
This man is a moral and logical fool using sophistry to elevate his standing by confusing the easily manipulated. Ignore him.