UndercoverElephant wrote:...it's a question about moral responsibility,...
Yes
The UK government should represent you, so what you're telling me is that your moral responsibility should be to the humans who live near to you and you have none to those that live far away (except where their well being is of practical benefit to the nearby humans).
I don't think either of you do believe this, as I've heard both of you speak passionately about our crimes in Iraq and Ukraine - both that could be considered the UK and US governments acting only it their own country's interests. I'm fairly certain you would also object to our support of 'stable' totalitarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Laos etc.
I'm not sure I agree with Biff's answer about primary responsibilities to their jurisdiction. At present there is no world authority, so the UK government is the most appropriate authority for Ozone depletion.
Another mis-characterization. You don't have to "interpret" my position. My position is no more or less than I have written.
All other things being equal, I will help my neighbour if I can, but not at unacceptable expense to my family and certainly not without my family's permission. I will help my community if I can, but not at unacceptable expense to my neighbour and certainly not without my neighbour's permission etc. This is not the same as what you have implied.
That's not interpretation, Steve. That's the logical consequence of your position and the UK government representing you (my introduction, but a fairly safe one I think). Please stop shouting straw-man at every argument that's put before you, it's just tedious.
It's interesting that you think your responsibility to your family / community trumps your responsibility to your country. Presumably that has limits: you wouldn't take it to Cosa Nostra levels, would you? Your government definitely disagrees with you in that priority list.
That may seem facile, but it also hurts your family to pay more taxes... think you can see where I'm going with that.
AndySir wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with Biff's answer about primary responsibilities to their jurisdiction. At present there is no world authority, so the UK government is the most appropriate authority for Ozone depletion.
I'm not sure that I do either, but I was trying to stick to UE's framing of the question and it may be a matter of how one interprets the word 'primary'.
There may be no world authority but the UN is the closest we have and was instrumental in the Montreal Protocol and will be in the UNFCCC process towards a replacement of the Kyoto Protocol.
biffvernon wrote:By the way, I haven't been to Ireland for many years but what sort of border controls are there between Ulster and the rest of Ireland. When I was there last, at the height of 'the troubles' we just drove across it. Can you still do that?
Yus. I've been up there many times and never noticed a 'border' as such, just people who advertise taking € or £ (and the road signs are different, the pillar boxes are red and that little corner of this island has had masses of money thrown at it).
So from a very personal perspective, there is no border.
Each of these places has its own attractions and reasons for people living where they do.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
That's good to know. Thanks. Ireland is not part of the Schengen Agreement so you would need a passport to go to Iceland from Ireland but not from, say, Greece.
UndercoverElephant wrote:...it's a question about moral responsibility,...
Yes
The UK government should represent you, so what you're telling me is that your moral responsibility should be to the humans who live near to you and you have none to those that live far away (except where their well being is of practical benefit to the nearby humans).
Nope. The UK government should represent *ME* (and other British people). It is not their place to decide, on my behalf, that I have a moral responsibility for people in other countries. I did not vote for them on the basis that they would look after other people before British people.
Communication failure - that appears to be exactly what I said. Correct it's not the government's place to decide on your behalf, it's your right to decide on their behalf what their moral responsibilties are. Therefore if you don't think the government should be overly concerned with the wellbeing of foreign citizens then it follows that you don't think that. Which, clearly, you don't.
I disagree. Protectionism is always a losing strategy, so whether it's done for moral reasons or practical ones the wellbeing of our community of nations pretty high on my priority list.
I am not talking about "protectionism". I am talking about acting in our own interests. That almost certainly involves active agreements with other governments for things like, for example, free trade zones like the old EEC (which was the opposite of protectionism, at least within Europe).
And I disagree that "protectionism" is "always a losing strategy". It depends entirely on the circumstances.
To get this back on topic, I can't understand how anybody in their right mind believes that opening the borders of the UK to anyone who wants to come here could possibly be in the best interests of the people who are already here. The only rational justification for it is if you think it is in the best interests of the human race in general, and place that as a higher priority than the best interests of the existing citizens of the UK.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
To get this back on topic, I can't understand how anybody in their right mind believes that opening the borders of the UK to anyone who wants to come here could possibly be in the best interests of the people who are already here.
Now I know you have said that there is incredible pressure upon housing & services where you live as a result of immigration. Cui bono? I suggest someone else is reaping the benefits and leaving you stuck with the costs, and it is with that corruption that your problem lies - not immigration.
AndySir wrote:Now I know you have said that there is incredible pressure upon housing & services where you live as a result of immigration. Cui bono? I suggest someone else is reaping the benefits and leaving you stuck with the costs, and it is with that corruption that your problem lies - not immigration.
Yes, that is a really key point. The immigrants has generated enough wealth, more than enough, to build the extra school, hospitals, houses etc. that they need. That is hasn't happened suggests central government has taken the immigrant economic windfall and spent it elsewhere.
UndercoverElephant wrote:The only rational justification for it is if you think it is in the best interests of the human race in general, and place that as a higher priority than the best interests of the existing citizens of the UK.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I'm pretty keen on what is in the best interests of the human race. The existing citizens of the UK are a subset of the human race, defined by some rather arbitrary lines of geography.
clv101 wrote:The immigrants have generated enough wealth, more than enough, to build the extra school, hospitals, houses etc. that they need. That it hasn't happened suggests central government has taken the immigrant economic windfall and spent it elsewhere.
Very true. And not just immigrants but the working class in general. We should change the way wealth accumulates with the capitalists rather than scape-goating groups of people who generate the wealth but don't get to enjoy their fair share.
UndercoverElephant wrote:The only rational justification for it is if you think it is in the best interests of the human race in general, and place that as a higher priority than the best interests of the existing citizens of the UK.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I'm pretty keen on what is in the best interests of the human race. The existing citizens of the UK are a subset of the human race, defined by some rather arbitrary lines of geography.
Yes, but the point is that there are lots of those "arbitrary subsets", and in the other subsets, those in charge are looking after the interests of their own subsets. If you, or anybody else, decides on my behalf that the government on this subset should look after the whole world rather than this subset, then my response is to tell you where to go, and a lot of other people's response it to vote for UKIP. Do you understand yet?
UndercoverElephant wrote: If you, or anybody else, decides on my behalf that the government on this subset should look after the whole world rather than this subset, then my response is to tell you where to go, and a lot of other people's response it to vote for UKIP. Do you understand yet?
...uh, people who are opposed to internationalism are unlikely to vote for an internationalist party? Seems as facile a point as 'I've got a right to an opinion'.
UndercoverElephant wrote: If you, or anybody else, decides on my behalf that the government on this subset should look after the whole world rather than this subset, then my response is to tell you where to go, and a lot of other people's response it to vote for UKIP. Do you understand yet?
...uh, people who are opposed to internationalism are unlikely to vote for an internationalist party? Seems as facile a point as 'I've got a right to an opinion'.
No, you're still misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not against "internationalist" any more than I am for "protectionism". What I want is for the UK to be run in the best interests of the people of the UK, whatever policies that requires. What I am against is the UK being run in the best interests of people outside the UK, out of some misguided moral crusade which the people of the UK have not given their permission for. And the reason I am making this point is to make clear, yet again, that the rise of the political right across Europe is largely a response to the sort of views and policies being supported by people like Biff Vernon and yourself.
I am opposed to immigration, not "internationalism".
