Immigration

Alot of people have opinions about immigration, some think its great some think its bad and some think its something that comes along with a global economy regardless if we want it or not.

Personally I am for free immigration, we just need to adjust our economies and political systems for this. The countries that do this best will have a huge economic advantage in a world where human capital have become the most important economic resource. If you can successfully create a system where ideas from different cultures can meet and form concrete economic products and improvements you basically have the successrecipe for the post-fordistic economy we live in today.

We also see a lot of countries, mainly in Europe but also USA, Canada, Japan and some others, with an increasingly aging population. Even if we forget the ideas and cultures meeting we will need a lot of labour. It sounds insane to me not to let people come here and work when they want to and we need them.

But most important, its the morally right thing to do, I dont think any swede "deserve" our system more than people from Somalia. And I dont think any american "deserve" USA:s system more than me, if I wanted to go there.

The moral argument is shit.

I'm not morally forced to let everyone come to my house and share my money and things with them. It's my property and i can decide who i want to allow coming here and if i want to share my "system" with them.

This can be applied to a country aswell. Sweden is the property of the state which is representative for the people since we live in a democracy, therefore Sweden is the property of its inhabitants. It's up to the owners of the property if they want to share it with new people. Therefore immigration is only morally defendable if the people in the country want it, not by default.

Ofc there is exceptions. For example if i see a person being chased on my street i'm morally forced to let him in my house if his life is in danger. Sweden is also forced to let refugees stay here until the situation has become safe in their old countries.

Moral argument is HORSEYS

An average Swede IS more deserving of the Swedish system. He knows the language, is able to contribute to society, understands and appreciates concepts such as free speech and women being people.

The average Somalian knows nothing of any of these is not at all as deserving.

Shoop wants communism as usual. What's the difference between deserving a system and deserving a job? According to Shoop jobs should just be given without regard for qualifications.

Stekpanna, so you dont think what is juridicly right is the same as what is morally right?

Sidey, as usual a lot of flaws when you try to argue.

First of all, ok its your opinion that people deserve their jobs or nationality. I dont agree with that since the underlying factors for whatever job or nationality you have is out of our controll. I dont think someone who wins a billion dollar on a lottery or Tiger Woods deserves better lives than someone who works overtime as a nurse. Which I assume you do then?

I do however belive in a market economic system, but that is beacause I agree with John Rawls principles of Justice :

Quote :

1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.

2.Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

But so to summarize, you think a massmurderer in Sweden deserves our system more than an innocent child in Somalia, simply beacause you belive the avarege swede is likeley to contribute more to our society than the avarege somalian?

Lets say there was some country in which we knew the avarege citizen would contribute more than the avarege swede, would it be morally wrong then to deny them citizenships? And would it be morally right to throw out swedes for them if Sweden would become a "better" country?

Quote :

First of all, ok its your opinion that people deserve their jobs or nationality. I dont agree with that since the underlying factors for whatever job or nationality you have is out of our controll.

Shoop strikes AGAIN

Yes what is the problem?

You belive that people deserve their jobs and nationality or not?

Shoop wrote:

Stekpanna, so you dont think what is juridicly right is the same as what is morally right?

What??

Well you argue since its your property you have the moral rights to let in whoever you want. What belongs do who according to a juridical system and what he can do with it isnt neccesary the same as what you deserve and what is morally right to do.

For instance, if you buy a bread do you deserve it then? And in that case why?

Can we even deserve anything we have? Isnt life just a lottery? What talents you were born with, where you were born, how you were brought up, what chances you get in life etc? And if your answer is yes, when do we start deserving the things we have? As infants?

By sidey's own argument pertaining to free will he loses to himself.

Shoop too.


Lol @ this...

It would be nice if Cele and Sidey could stop ruining topics, if you are not interested in or too stupid to argue for what you think then stay the fuck out. Your bullshit oneliners fucks up potentially good topics other people are actually interested in.

Cele has a point. Yes, it is a shame that where you are born has a huge effect on your life, and in some countries you may have no chance at all. But in others, such as the US, western European countries, or developed Asia, your jobs, to a large degree, are related to choices you make.

Quote :

Isnt life just a lottery? What talents you were born with, where you were born, how you were brought up, what chances you get in life etc? And if your answer is yes, when do we start deserving the things we have? As infants?

You are looking at the issue in the most general case possibly, which is something you shouldn't. Every person has a different story and thus differing "right" to their gains. If I work my ass off--applying to the top schools in my area, graduating early, taking on unpaid internships, I damn right demand more job more than someone who simply skates by school without an ounce of hard work in them.

Of course if you were born with the absolute worst parents, or in the absolute worst country, or with HIV, your chances are greatly hindered and you do have to, unfairly, work a lot harder. However, most people aren't in this boat. Most can strive hard to succeed. Their chance is inherently lowered, but they still have choices.

That quote is basically a 100% against free will argument. To me, free will is the ability for something to advocate for itself. We have the ability to at least strive for a better life, and those who do deserve, to a degree, what they get. But they should also be well aware of others hinders and should strive to better other's positions as well.



As for immigration, I do somewhat agree with the moral argument. However, all immigrants should be somewhat nationalized or globalized--learn the language, general goings of society, etc, etc. Because this is a resource drain, it must be limited (not for those who are already socialized before entering). We don't operate under a united system, but if one (developed) country offered 100% free immigration to the US, the US should offer 100% free immigration back. A fair trade. If the pattern continued, soon enough all countries would offer it.


Labor jobs are already being shipped off to other countries. The develop world should work to cater their work environments towards more high-tech, education-requiring jobs and shipping off the labors overseas. It's obviously economically more beneficial as well as helping developed countries.

shoops moral argument makes sense to anyone who isnt a nutcase, and to argue otherwise should exile you from the debate. we want to read some materials, not a trash obvjections that has nothing to do with anything.

wtf is this SHIT, some of the worst arguments/logic ive read in any debate. ''im not morally forced to let ppl get in my house'' ''sweden is my property and swedens system is mine" ''a swede is more deserving of sweden because he knows the language'' ssHAtaFAcksAP PLZ

Chakra I dont really think you are making a philosophical effort at this, which is something you have to do if we are going to discuss morals.

Quote :

You are looking at the issue in the most general case possibly, which is something you shouldn't. Every person has a different story and thus differing "right" to their gains. If I work my ass off--applying to the top schools in my area, graduating early, taking on unpaid internships, I damn right demand more job more than someone who simply skates by school without an ounce of hard work in them.

I dont know what you meant by demand a job more, but I assuming you mean you deserve the job more? This is your opinion and you have the right to have it. But what we are looking for is the reason to why you have the opinion.

Why do you deserve the job more? Beacause you worked more? Beacause you contributed more to society?

If the latter, isnt your ability to contribute to society, regardless of your free will, a product of the talents you were born with? For instance, let us assume that Einstein contributed more to society than a nurse due to his work. Does that mean he deserves a better life? He was born with extreme intelligence and probably some other abilities which fit very well with the time he was born in to. He won a very important lottery when he was born and could, thanks to that, contribute a lot more than most people to our society.

If you mean its due to hard work, is this the only thing that separates who deserves what? The harder you work the more you deserve? Regardless of what you do and how well you do it?

gwegwegwegrewgre

Yeye, "demand more job" was supposed to mean "deserve my job."

Quote :

isnt your ability to contribute to society, regardless of your free will, a product of the talents you were born with

That contradicts itself. Do you believe free will exists or not? Should those who try harder than others (for no reason of external factors) should not be somehow elevated than those who choose to be lazy?

You are picking the exceptional out of the general population--why not a general? Why not take an average person? An average person, no matter their intelligence or innate gifts, may choose (of their own volition) to work harder than another average person. They should, in my opinion, be somehow rewarded for this. No matter the reward, as long as it is recognized they deserve an ounce of something, it makes them more deserving of a good system.

I have a twin brother. We probably have very similar innate talents and intelligence, had the same parents, went through the same raising, had the same environment, etc. Yet I am, by far, surpassing him in school and what not. This wasn't just randomly. When I entered secondary school, I applied to the most rigorous school in the area. He went to the standard zone school. I started college two years early (he also did, but at a lower intensity). I have clearly worked harder. I clearly am more deserving than he.

And that is simply how society works. Society, like evolution, picks for those who benefit it more. While it may sound cold, if you cater to those who work harder, it encourages hard work. Now I don't degree with the current level of reward, but I do agree some reward should exist--scholars work off recognition and seem to get along just fine (and what do you know? Very few history professors hold tenure).


However, happenstance of regional birth is different than innate abilities, as there is no bell curve to explain it. It is more of an inverted curve. If you are born in China, your chances of success is near nothing. If you are born in the US, you have a high chance of living a somewhat comfortable life (the average citizen could live comfortably if they had a better mindset). Same with most high-income countries. Born in Indonesia and not in a rich family? You're poor. Simple as that--no fluidity.

That is why I accept free immigration. Some countries give no opportunity. Some do. Those that do should be perfectly fine with immigration--as those that do have fluidity tend to also be relatively equal.



Beeeh, do you want your nieces and nephews to have a nice life? What about your second nieces? Or perhaps close family friends? Less closer friends? Don't you want everyone you know to have a nicer life? It is obvious you want your children to have a nice life, and if you work hard, you try to give it to them. But what about the kids that don't have such caring parents? Do they deserve to "rot in the system?" No one is saying your children deserve nothing of your wealth, they are saying other children deserve something, the least an opportunity to make themselves wealthy. No child should have to suffer poverty--homelessness, hunger, sickness, etc. If you don't believe that, you're probably closer to being a robot than a human.

Chakra, we are not arguing how society is or even how it should be. We are arguing if it is possible to deserve what you have.

I dont think you can, beacause even if you work hard to contribute to society you are still working with resources (education, talents, upbringing, energy, etc) which you cant possible deserve. You won all of these in the lottery of life by being born at the right place in the right time with the right parents.

That, however, does not mean we shouldnt reward people who do a good job in contributing to society. But the reason for this is not that these people deserve it, the reason for this is that incentive to work hard and do a good job in contributing benefits everyone. Even those who dont benefit most from it. This is why I think that the only acceptable inequalities in society are those that benefit those worst of.

In other words, you should get a salary for being a doctor or a lawyer, but only the minimum amount required to get you to continue being one. The rest of the profit from your job should be distributed equally in society.

For the same reason I find it absurde that whats best for us should be more important in a moral discussion that what is best for people in Somalia. It is not fitting a liberal democracy with a foundation in equal human rights not to have free immigration.

While I don't suppose some would work hard for nothing, most people--Americans among the top--would not become a doctor if they gained the same salary as one who works at a gas station.

Quote :

That, however, does not mean we shouldnt reward people who do a good job in contributing to society.

Word it as you wish.

deserve: To be entitled to, as a result of past actions; to be worthy to have.
reward: Something of value given in return for an act.

Yes and the the difference is why you reward someone. You seem to argue that we should reward a doctor beacause he deserves it. In my opinion we should reward a doctor to give him the incentive to continue being a doctor.

The difference is this.

If we reward a doctor beacause he deserves it the reward is based on what he deserve, how much that is is up to you to answer.

I think we should reward a doctor beacause the incentive would benefit everyone in the society. That is however not the same as saying they deserve it.

This isnt just semantics and the philosophical issue is important in the political debate. If you, like me, think life is a lottery and the inequalities within a system is only morally justified if they benefit those worst of you would argue that a doctors salary should be the minimum required for the incentive to still be high enough for him to be a doctor.

If you argue that doctors deserve high salaries beacause they put down a lot of hard work and beacause they benefit the society then their salary should be based on that. It could be higher and lower on the salary you would get from my way of looking at it. What do you think it should be based on? How much he contributes? How hard he works? How much hard work he put down in his education? Or do you believe in no state and no taxes? That some sort of uncontrolled free market should controll everything and that even police should be a service you hire?

If we give something to a doctor because he is worthy to have due to past actions that benefit society.

You are for some reason believing that the concepts are mutually exclusive. If someone does something good for society--for the good of society or for the good of themselves--then society has an innate drive to reward that person for said action. This "innate drive" tells us they deserve something for their action.

Your idea of a lottery is hugely flawed. You seem to think that there is the rich 1%, then the poor 99%. It isn't simply a lottery.

According to that chart (which I randomly googled for), over 20% of the population is in the "Consumer Class." While it is obvious those in the lower end don't live fabulous lives, we must remember that this isn't adjust for PPP or anything. Either way, 20% chance is much more than "winning the lottery." And the close to 60% in the "Middle Class" may possibly have a chance.



Shoop. Explain to me the difference between my brother and me. We have rolled for nearly an exact environment, yet I am more successful. Am I not the more favored person (in the eyes of society)?

How am I supposed to explain the difference between you and your brother when I know nothing about you, him, your upbringing or lives?

Why dont you instead answer why you think you deserve a bigger share of what the society produces than him?

Quote :

If we give something to a doctor because he is worthy to have due to past actions that benefit society.

Well this is your standpoint. I dont agree that he is worthy it anymore than anyone else, but that it might be a good idea to reward him as an incentive.

Quote :

You are for some reason believing that the concepts are mutually exclusive. If someone does something good for society--for the good of society or for the good of themselves--then society has an innate drive to reward that person for said action. This "innate drive" tells us they deserve something for their action.

What do you mean when you say "This "innate drive" tells us they deserve something for their action."? What is an "innate drive" and why does it tells us they deserve something for their action? And what do you exacly mean with deserve?

Quote :

According to that chart (which I randomly googled for), over 20% of the population is in the "Consumer Class." While it is obvious those in the lower end don't live fabulous lives, we must remember that this isn't adjust for PPP or anything. Either way, 20% chance is much more than "winning the lottery." And the close to 60% in the "Middle Class" may possibly have a chance.

I have no idea what you are talking about and what you want to get with this, but natural attributes shouldnt effect the claim on how much of a societies goods and wealth you deserve. The basic right for what an individual deserve is an equal share. After that the rational choice leads us to accepting inequalities that benefits those worst of in society. But not beacause anyone deserves or have any basic right to a bigger share than anyone else.

BEeeH wrote:

nice post amir. keep the good work up with the knock-out arguments




The moral argument is the most insane shit Ive ever heard from this stone throwing geek of a nut - Shoop.

Why would any 68 IQ muslim somalian DESERVE to live in sweden as much as me? My family and ancestors have been a part of building this country, to give me and other swedes a chance for a nice future.

Think about it like this: if ur parents died today, who would get their money? You or some random kid from LT?.. You would get them of course, but do you deserve them? Yes(if u have been a good boi), it is my ancestors and familys WILL to give me the opportunities to have a nice life. Just as I would want my future kids to have an opportunity for a nice life, I would work my ass off for THEM, not for some gang-raping africans. Everyone with parents born in Sweden deserves to get the opportunity. I for instance, has taken care of my opportunities and made the best out of them. Thats why I deserve to live in the standards i live in today, to fulfill my ancestors will. Same goes for my future kids, they deserve to have a chance for a bright future because Ive helped to build it for THEM. What they later decide to do with the opportunities is another case.

U were right about one thing tho, life isnt fair. There will always be kids that are turd/born at bad places etc or vice versa. But there is nothing we can do about it without introducing some extreme stalin communism.

cya clowns

I really cba to throw myself into this discussion over internet with turds. But, when I read beeeh's post i realise we MUST higher the age of voting. It is INSANE people in my age can vote about things actually being important. Or maybe we should cut off Northern Sweden from voting. shiitttttz

Is there a prize to winning this debate or????

Yeah, your posts will be inviseble to whoever wins this debate.

Well anyway, it seems like most people agree the morally right thing is to treat people equally regardless of where they were born.

Now on to next question about immigration, the economic part. I will quote my first post why I think its a good idea economicly.

Quote :

Personally I am for free immigration, we just need to adjust our economies and political systems for this. The countries that do this best will have a huge economic advantage in a world where human capital have become the most important economic resource. If you can successfully create a system where ideas from different cultures can meet and form concrete economic products and improvements you basically have the successrecipe for the post-fordistic economy we live in today.

We also see a lot of countries, mainly in Europe but also USA, Canada, Japan and some others, with an increasingly aging population. Even if we forget the ideas and cultures meeting we will need a lot of labour. It sounds insane to me not to let people come here and work when they want to and we need them.

I think everyone agrees that citizenship is like a job application. Some people are qualified and some are not.