Random thought

Fans of open borders often say that borders are meaningless (“lines on a map” – as if people haven’t been dying for lines on a map for ages). However, they simultaneously believe that if lots of people from country B move to country A somehow country A will not be fundamentally changed. What, other than borders, gives country A this seemingly magically property of functioning independently of its population?

Advertisements

8 Responses to Random thought

  1. Thomas says:

    Well, it makes perfect sense if you think that the only important quality of a country lies in its institutions and you don’t believe they will change if the composition of the population changes.
    Hence the two-pronged approach of importing people to our institutions and exporting our institutions to people in the rest of the world. It doesn’t work obviously, but it is a consistent theory.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Actually it has worked and worked very well – only not the way it’s done now.

      Rule by people from the first world over people of the third world can produce order and significantly improve the living situation in the third world. Examine the continent of Africa for examples.

      What cannot work is democracy. Our government is choosing to import third world populations because they are better clients of the progressive state than the legacy population of the United States. It doesn’t offer better rule because that’s not where the incentives are. The incentives are to gather clients so gather clients it does.

  2. Hugo says:

    The “borders are meaningless” is just the naturalistic fallacy. “Borders are not found in the state of nature therefore borders are bad.” Ridiculous.

  3. Handle says:

    Thomas is completely right. All the open-borders types I know believe in the infinite absorbance and assimilative capacity of the abstract “The American System” of any number of any kind of people from anywhere. Plenty of other first-worlders have come to believe similarly insane things about their own systems – which is why the ultra-slow-motion Camp-of-the-Saints scenario is presently unfolding.

    To the extent that borders prevent anywhere else in the world from being as awesome as the developed countries for the people trying to flee from poorer countries to ours, it is only because “The System” does not yet fully operate there.

    In this way, “The System” is a one-way ratchet of productivity, civil-order, and quality-of-life for people that can only improve oppressed-peoples’ prospects, and it could never be possible that uncontrolled importing of huge numbers of incompatible, very poor, and low human capital people to The System could bring the average standard of living down.

    In other words – a Mexico operating just like America would be just like America but full of Mexicans – like the Southwest.

    Of course, everyone who believes this delusion has never been to the now utterly-Mexican-dominated parts of the Southwest (like where VDH still farms) which now far more resembles Mexico than it does the rest of California. But hey – even in Mexico – where the pale elite lives – it’s pretty nice and the people who live in those Green Zones barely know or care anything about their “wild frontier areas”. Just don’t try to go outside the wire at night.

  4. Leonard says:

    Seconding both the above. One question is, why don’t the progressives see that institutions are rooted in people? It’s because we are all equal (except where we aren’t). Thus, there can be no significant difference in how people run institutions, so long as those people are the good ones — rational, Cathedral-believing progressives. Thus, the institutions do in a sense transcend the people.

    (To be fair, this is something of a strawman — many progressives are willing to admit that institutions may function differently with different people running them. But the difference here is evil white men; our institutions will actually function better if manned (and womanned! And GLTBQ?ed!) by people other than white men.)

    Here is Mencius discussing idealism.

  5. sardonic_sob says:

    Shorter answer: Because the kind of person who believes that borders are just lines on a map also believes that diversity only causes the transfer of positive attributes. As soon as a migrating person sees the aspects of their new home that are better than the comparable aspects of their old home they will quickly abandon those concepts for those of the new home. If we open our borders we won’t get narco-thugs, female circumcision, or mutaween, we’ll just get nifty food and wise stories encouraging a better and more spiritual social fabric.

    As the kids say, “Duh.”

  6. Isn’t this a bit like asking “If you believe in free speech, why are you bothering to argue your point using something as meaningless as words?”

  7. […] – “Random Thought“, “Free Choice: Marriage […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: