“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
You assume this is one-sided. For example how about for once we detail the two positions on immigration accurately. Each is of course misguided, and neither is moral by the standards of people using the position.
1) we don't want immigrants. They haven't done anything wrong but people will have a better situtation, better jobs, better house, better partner, better life. The rich will have to provide this if they don't have an alternative.
2) we want immigrants. We want them to work hard, for rewards that we consider beneath us, and then we don't even want to pay them what we promised. For example, if they are even suspected of the slightest of misdeeds over decades we take it all away.
In practice most political positions work like this. And worse than that: people just switch between these two. Make people rich, no real concerns, and the vast majority will be "pro-immigrant" (position 2). Take stuff away from people and they will almost all switch to "anti-immigrant" (position 1). And they'll make excuses such as pro-immigrant giving people better lives, and you hopefully see the problem with that. Pro-immigrant does not mean people want immigrants as equals, in fact the opposite. Anti-immigrant also has many excuses, such as that it prevents brain drain and allows the countries immigrants come from to improve faster. These excuses may even be true, but they're excuses, nothing more.
I think the fatal error is using immigration as the key rubric.
Debate about immigration policy is a distraction designed to keep both you and immigrants themselves aggravated and ideally fighting each other instead of focusing on the real adversaries, people like Mr Altman.
You have infinitely more in common with a random immigrant than you have with the oligarch class. Most problems blamed on immigration could be solved with money extracted from people like Mr Altman.
Don't let them distract you. Don't give them control over the issues, don't allow them to make us talk about immigration instead of the fact that a few people own most of the US as well as most likely whatever country the immigrant came from.
Conspiracist nonsense lapped up by base populists.
(I say this as someone very pro-immigration. Though, I guess I would be, wouldn't I, since anti-immigration people will readily adopt both right and left conspiracy theories.)
Which part is incorrect? I invite you to actually address my claims instead of degrading the quality of debate.
Is it not correct that a handful people own most of the US and that most likely the same is true in whatever country a prospective immigrant comes from?
Is it not correct that chances are you and I and whichever immigrant are on the don't-own-most-of-the-economy part of the divide?
Is it not correct that conversation about immigration keeps us focused on being angry with people that generally also are just trying to get by and live a good life as opposed to, y'know, the thing this submission started out about? You can see it happening in this very thread!
> Is it not correct that a handful people own most of the US and that most likely the same is true in whatever country a prospective immigrant comes from?
No. I think you'll find that certainly when it comes to effective ownership, the US is more equal, not less, than most 3rd world countries. In a way, it is still far more equal than Europe.
People don't know this, because this is heavily deemphasized, but it's second or third world countries where you find absurd wealth absurdly concentrated, not the US. Of course, if anything that's still an argument in favor of redistribution. Relative equality, even compared to Europe, but certainly compared to Africa or India or the Middle East or Asia, was what built the US. Let's get back to that.
Even now, even compared to Europe, you can say the US is more equal in that the US rich are "young" families. In Europe, there was some wealth redistribution among the ultra-rich in the 20th century ... but that happened due to and through WW2.
Most Euroepan ultra-rich families are like the Von Der Leyens. Nobody in her family has been living in anything less than a castle for over 800 years. Her family has been wealthy for over 3 times the total lifetime of the US, and her family became wealthy as the result of a "free city" grant ... by the Holy Roman Empire (essentially a tax break, just centuries ago)
If you go to a luxury hotel in Kinshasa or Manila you'll see what I mean. There is of course luxury in America, but nothing compared to what exists there. Hotels have malls that locals can't get into (and are thus almost entirely empty). Locals are deferent to you, to an extreme extent (talk about something you never see in the US), and other locals hate you for it. Restaurants are cleared by the police (Kinshasa) just because 5 westerners want to eat there. And so on.
And places like Africa and Asia are an order of magnitude worse and that is still the case.
k310 · · focus · HN ↗
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
<a href="https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/" rel="nofollow">https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/
spwa4 · · focus · HN ↗
1) we don't want immigrants. They haven't done anything wrong but people will have a better situtation, better jobs, better house, better partner, better life. The rich will have to provide this if they don't have an alternative.
2) we want immigrants. We want them to work hard, for rewards that we consider beneath us, and then we don't even want to pay them what we promised. For example, if they are even suspected of the slightest of misdeeds over decades we take it all away.
In practice most political positions work like this. And worse than that: people just switch between these two. Make people rich, no real concerns, and the vast majority will be "pro-immigrant" (position 2). Take stuff away from people and they will almost all switch to "anti-immigrant" (position 1). And they'll make excuses such as pro-immigrant giving people better lives, and you hopefully see the problem with that. Pro-immigrant does not mean people want immigrants as equals, in fact the opposite. Anti-immigrant also has many excuses, such as that it prevents brain drain and allows the countries immigrants come from to improve faster. These excuses may even be true, but they're excuses, nothing more.
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
Debate about immigration policy is a distraction designed to keep both you and immigrants themselves aggravated and ideally fighting each other instead of focusing on the real adversaries, people like Mr Altman.
You have infinitely more in common with a random immigrant than you have with the oligarch class. Most problems blamed on immigration could be solved with money extracted from people like Mr Altman.
Don't let them distract you. Don't give them control over the issues, don't allow them to make us talk about immigration instead of the fact that a few people own most of the US as well as most likely whatever country the immigrant came from.
meowface · · focus · HN ↗
(I say this as someone very pro-immigration. Though, I guess I would be, wouldn't I, since anti-immigration people will readily adopt both right and left conspiracy theories.)
vrganj · · focus · HN ↗
Is it not correct that a handful people own most of the US and that most likely the same is true in whatever country a prospective immigrant comes from?
Is it not correct that chances are you and I and whichever immigrant are on the don't-own-most-of-the-economy part of the divide?
Is it not correct that conversation about immigration keeps us focused on being angry with people that generally also are just trying to get by and live a good life as opposed to, y'know, the thing this submission started out about? You can see it happening in this very thread!
spwa4 · · focus · HN ↗
No. I think you'll find that certainly when it comes to effective ownership, the US is more equal, not less, than most 3rd world countries. In a way, it is still far more equal than Europe.
People don't know this, because this is heavily deemphasized, but it's second or third world countries where you find absurd wealth absurdly concentrated, not the US. Of course, if anything that's still an argument in favor of redistribution. Relative equality, even compared to Europe, but certainly compared to Africa or India or the Middle East or Asia, was what built the US. Let's get back to that.
Even now, even compared to Europe, you can say the US is more equal in that the US rich are "young" families. In Europe, there was some wealth redistribution among the ultra-rich in the 20th century ... but that happened due to and through WW2.
Most Euroepan ultra-rich families are like the Von Der Leyens. Nobody in her family has been living in anything less than a castle for over 800 years. Her family has been wealthy for over 3 times the total lifetime of the US, and her family became wealthy as the result of a "free city" grant ... by the Holy Roman Empire (essentially a tax break, just centuries ago)
If you go to a luxury hotel in Kinshasa or Manila you'll see what I mean. There is of course luxury in America, but nothing compared to what exists there. Hotels have malls that locals can't get into (and are thus almost entirely empty). Locals are deferent to you, to an extreme extent (talk about something you never see in the US), and other locals hate you for it. Restaurants are cleared by the police (Kinshasa) just because 5 westerners want to eat there. And so on.
And places like Africa and Asia are an order of magnitude worse and that is still the case.