Okay, so wil brings up an interesting question whether or not you should loot a business to feed your family. This thread is for questions like that rather than the usual partisan lines. The answers to the 'big questions' are apt to dictate which partisan line you like the most, imho. And, yes you will become a partisan hack as you age; that is just a given.

From deeper, The question to answer before it gets to that is:

Is there enough food to feed everybody?

Just to be clear, me using that example was in defense of someone claiming someone from another country gets an open door if they are fleeing war or poverty and should be let right in to the united States. I just don't agree with that. We shouldn't just let anyone in because things suck where they are from. I feel bad for them too but no country has unlimited resources.

Going deeper and more far out, suppose nothing has unlimited resources?

Is there enough food to feed everyone? Is space available to hold for people who seek shelter? I there enough water so people can drink? This is the way for solutions that change life for people from war to peace, irregardless how any one feels about them.

Even if it could be done, why should it? Let's get even more philosophical here. Governments are set up by the people of those countries. Their responsibility is to their people first. Just because another government somewhere isn't doing right by their people why does that responsibility fall on X country?

Don't get me wrong, humanitarian aid or assistance is one thing, but I don't see how you could justify just throwing doors open and letting everyone in. If my neighbors house burns down we can have dinner and they can stay a few nights, but they sure as hell dont get to bang my wife and take half my paycheck from there on out.

Why? Why not while there is enough food, water and space held for people.

Resources are finite, spank. And at what point should one group of people suffer to help another, philosophically?

Let's say the united States could handle 10 million more people, without a problem. Should we do it? How about 15 million but we will lose a certain amount of money. Should we do it? How about 20 million and we spend a lot of money and strain our infrastructure. Should we do it?

The point is that in a world of finite resources you have to make decisions on how those resources are distributed. Even then, who gets what and why? We are in a position to help because we have extra resources due to wealth created by the systems and effort we put forth. Why should we feel guilty for creating something good?

I asked the deeper resource questions and dismissed emotional appeals already.

Is it right that someone who has illegally entered this country to have more benefits than an American single mother who struggles to support her children?

Hobbes would argue that if you're in a state of nature, property rights doesn't yet enter the equation, so people will naturally gather resources any way possible.

Some would describe the border between the US/Mexico as a Hobbsian anarchy.

There is enough food to feed the world
https://www.oxfam.ca/there-enough-food-feed-world

It's worth pointing out that America gets a lot of its goods from that red region. When you buy clothes, for example, they are usually made under crushing conditions that Americans couldn't even possibly imagine. And those are the lucky, fully employed people of that region. In many ways we are directly profiting from the suffering in those places.

Food is a resource management problem, so a big question is whether or not central planning can handle resources better than the market.

add:

Also, people who portray Mexicans as a net-negative on the economy need to show their work. It's highly beneficial to have a larger labor force. It is not as though everyone comes across the border to get welfare. kthx.wav

You don't have to have just one or the other, in fact a combination of both seems like the optimal solution just intuitively.

And here is largely the issue for me when it comes to immigration. Our existence right now is predicated on their exploitation. If this thread is to be about political philosophy, then my argument would that in a globalised society, where our comfort is predicated on their work and resources, the social contract must be extended to include them to some degree. At that point, I don't know what right I have to start imposing limits and saying, sorry, we're full, you stay in the poor part of town.

Our existence right now, in my view, is predicated on the commodification and exploitation of everyone and everything we are seeing under what is called late-stage Capitalism.

All the fruits of this exploitation is going to the top 1% of the world. In my view, they should be enslaved, and the fruits of their ill gotten gains should fund free universal health care, free food, shelter, free education, for everyone, and also used to fund R&D in renewable and free energy, as well as to explore the Universe. Those that pollute the environment should be forced to try find sustenance in the chemicals they've polluted.

But that's like, my opinion, man.

Most of the people who are trying to come here illegally are doing so because the US military and/or drug war and/or economic policies completely ****ed over their country. They surely have more right to be here than wil or mongidig.

I was born here. Thanks.

A lot of the people are from countries that 'suck' as you put it, because of the actions of Western governments there.

You seem to be suggesting it's ok to **** another country over without any responsibility whatsoever for their citizens who are displaced or left destitute as a result.

Did wil f--k all this up already within 20 posts?



edit: Yes, within 3 posts.

Philosopher King: Could God microwave a burrito so hot that even He Himself could not eat it?

wil: Microwave ovens need electricity to work.

PK: ...

Anyhow, here was my response I was about to expound upon, but I just lost my mojo:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/biological_imperative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle


It should be obvious where I'm going anyhow.

Annddddd yeah, I'm calling it a night.

We (USAians) live in the modern day fertile crescent without having had a war on domestic soil ravage us.

Jesus ****ing christ praise be to Allah, humanity really was an evolutionary 'mistake' huh?

Lol, what kind of argument is this? Please, inform us how much responsibility should be taken on?