If You Are in Favor of Open Borders. Why?

[XDel]

What's the open boarder agenda really all about, and how come no country on the planet, that I am aware of, practices such as thing?

Humans are immature, and so it is wise not to lay pearls before swine.

 

[barronwaffles]

@supersonicwaffle

I recently moved into a position where I'm maintaining + updating the firmware for embedded devices largely geared towards the automotive industry - and the majority of the codebases I've encountered have absolutely horrific. It's fucking terrifying.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

@supersonicwaffle

I recently moved into a position where I'm maintaining + updating the firmware for embedded devices largely geared towards the automotive industry - and the majority of the codebases I've encountered have absolutely horrific. It's fucking terrifying.

Put some of the waffle magic in there!

Connected cars scare the living crap out of me. Not because I think it's an inherently bad idea but because I'm certain that manufacturers will cut corners to bring certain features to the market to get one up on their competitors while disregarding safety.

As an IT professional, I'd literally go to jail if I were to implement some of the stuff Tesla did in their cars and it wouldn't even have an affect on the physical well being of people.

 

[kuwanger]

What's the open boarder agenda really all about, and how come no country on the planet, that I am aware of, practices such as thing?

Humans are immature, and so it is wise to lay pearls before swine.

I think he question of "how come no country on the planet [does X]?" misses the point. Truly open borders will probably never appear, but bilateral agreements with many participating countries may become the norm in large sections of the world for the same reason that GATT and the WTO formed; there's substantial economic advantage to the ability of people to move around to deal with short or long term market changes.

he EU formed with something similar to open borders with members/associates and long-term may expand outside of Europe. Or similar economic zones may form in other parts of the world precisely so those regions can maintain competitiveness or to grow. Over time, I imagine regions will then establish bilateral rules for the movement of people between zones.

Protectionism [mostly] died through a rather long period (on the order of 50 years). I wouldn't be surprised if it took another 50 (or more) to see a substantial shift towards a quasi-open border system. I would say that if anything climate change may well accelerate the need, and open borders being the norm would cushion the damage versus dealing with the fallout of what will undoubtedly be waves of people moving. The alternative could be a lot worse.

 

[XDel]

I think he question of "how come no country on the planet [does X]?" misses the point. Truly open borders will probably never appear, but bilateral agreements with many participating countries may become the norm in large sections of the world for the same reason that GATT and the WTO formed; there's substantial economic advantage to the ability of people to move around to deal with short or long term market changes.

he EU formed with something similar to open borders with members/associates and long-term may expand outside of Europe. Or similar economic zones may form in other parts of the world precisely so those regions can maintain competitiveness or to grow. Over time, I imagine regions will then establish bilateral rules for the movement of people between zones.

Protectionism [mostly] died through a rather long period (on the order of 50 years). I wouldn't be surprised if it took another 50 (or more) to see a substantial shift towards a quasi-open border system. I would say that if anything climate change may well accelerate the need, and open borders being the norm would cushion the damage versus dealing with the fallout of what will undoubtedly be waves of people moving. The alternative could be a lot worse.

New World Order. Globalization. All Eggs in One Basket. Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.

 

[Clydefrosch]

New World Order. Globalization. All Eggs in One Basket. Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.

sounds like you're less interested in a discussion and more interested in throwing out nonsense conspiracy buzzwords?

 

[Deleted-401606]

sounds like you're less interested in a discussion and more interested in throwing out nonsense conspiracy buzzwords?

It's not a conspiracy,but GBAtemp isn't the place to discuss certain subjects so it isn't something that can be freely discussed and explained to non believers.

 

[XDel]

sounds like you're less interested in a discussion and more interested in throwing out nonsense conspiracy buzzwords?

What good is a discussion without understanding? So I shall suggest some good reads instead, though I do warn that these books require you to have a reading level higher than that required to go through the Harry Potter series.

Phaedrus by Plato (370 B.C.)

Utopia by Thoma More (1516)

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932)

The Shape of Things to Come by H.G. Wells (1933)

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman (1992)

The Disappearance of Childhood: Neil Postman (1994)

 

[notimp]

New World Order. Globalization. All Eggs in One Basket. Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.

The thing is, that dystopianism always is only one side of the coin (with more than two sides ) as well.

Its a side thats more important than most people (instagram society) would want to give it credit for (at least with digital dystopianism currently), but it never is "reality proper" as well. Not for everyone, not for most people.

Some of the concepts you mentioned (New World Order, partly "bet everything on one outcome") are almost pop culture by now and heavily emotionally charged.

NWO, or WO - started out as a normal term in foreign political discourse, meaning the state of international relationships, and now is championed for something entirely different. Betting everything on one card, also never much is the case as well - as there are political contigency plans for many things, as there is never just one model for anything.
(Article from five days ago: https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...echnologies-governance-by-ban-ki-moon-2019-03 )

So obsessing about those, first isnt something thats very fruitful, necessarily - because they are primarily "emotional truths". While the other points you listed, can actually be discussed or argued over with a more interesting outcome.

If you are stuck in a "everything is so bad, and many people already told us in the past" loop, thats not necessary good as well. Most people simply arent. Most people simply dont care. Most people simply are happier.

Now that said - it urks me to no end, if people run after facebook societies, for seven years - disregarding all the outcomes (journalism - dead), changes in behavior, changes ins societal weighing, changes in decision making, abuse potential (Trump), deceit of trust, and current practices that are going on (ousourcing moderating to second world countries), - and thinking that "I have nothing to hide" in any way is a proper response to all that. In that sense its a little like talking to children. But to children, that specifically dont want to know better, because everything they care about is having the "most popular thing to repeat" set in their response patterns at all time. Thats also what most people are intrinsically about. And then flipping 180 degrees into "someone that tells me, that thats me - cant exist, lets make them outcasts" at a whim, when you confront them with it. Thats the positive side of (techno)dystopianism. They are perspectives, that actually make us think about potential outcomes, before we shift entire societies towards it.

Instead we get people, that only talk in clickbait headlines in politcal forums as a result for example.

The sad thing is, that currently the critical, maybe even more dystopian perspective doesnt matter. What matters in the total markets driven version of technologically forward society ("the chinese did it!"), is only what makes money, what is popular, and what can conjour up fake feelings of "caring" so thats satisfied as well. (Id group religion and the social movement part of anti global warming activism, or CSR as a marketing measure in there.)

To me its important to see that. And not ride on dystopias coat tail all the times, or start to believe in a reverse concept of "everything is predetermened" (GOD ), just from the you cant do anytthing about it perspective..

Do some small things. See if something changes. (Most often in your relationship with others.)

 

[XDel]

The thing is, that dystopianism always is only one side of the coin (with more than two sides ) as well.

Its a side thats more important than most people (instagram society) would want to give it credit for (at least with digital dystopianism currently), but it never is "reality proper" as well. Not for everyone, not for most people.

Some of the concepts you mentioned (New World Order, partly "bet everything on one outcome") are almost pop culture by now and heavily emotionally charged.

NWO, or WO - started out as a normal term in foreign political discourse, meaning the state of international relationships, and now is championed for something entirely different. Betting everything on one card, also never much is the case as well - as there are political contigency plans for many things, as there is never just one model for anything.
(Article from five days ago: https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...echnologies-governance-by-ban-ki-moon-2019-03 )

So obsessing about those, first isnt something thats very fruitful, necessarily - because they are primarily "emotional truths". While the other points you listed, can actually be discussed or argued over with a more interesting outcome.

If you are stuck in a "everything is so bad, and many people already told us in the past" loop, thats not necessary good as well. Most people simply arent. Most people simply dont care. Most people simply are happier.

Now that said - it urks me to no end, if people run after facebook societies, for seven years - disregarding all the outcomes (journalism - dead), changes in behavior, changes ins societal weighing, changes in decision making, abuse potential (Trump), deceit of trust, and current practices that are going on (ousourcing moderating to second world countries), - and thinking that "I have nothing to hide" in any way is a proper response to all that. In that sense its a little like talking to children. But to children, that specifically dont want to know better, because everything they care about is having the "most popular thing to repeat" set in their response patterns at all time. Thats also what most people are intrinsically about. And then flipping 180 degrees into "someone that tells me, that thats me - cant exist, lets make them outcasts" at a whim, when you confront them with it. Thats the positive side of (techno)dystopianism. They are perspectives, that actually make us think about potential outcomes, before we shift entire societies towards it.

Instead we get people, that only talk in clickbait headlines in politcal forums as a result for example.

The sad thing is, that currently the critical, maybe even more dystopian perspective doesnt matter. What matters in the total open markets version of technologically forward society ("the chinese did it!"), is only what makes money, what is popular, and what can conjour up fake feelings of "caring" so thats satisfied as well. (Id group religion and the social movement part of anti global warming activism, or CSR as a marketing measure in there.)

To me its important to see that. And not ride on dystopias coat tail all the times, or start to believe in a reverse concept of "everything is predetermened" (GOD ), just from the you cant do anytthing about it perspective..

Do some small things. See if something changes. (Most often in your relationship with others.)

You sure put a lot of words in my mouth. And all news media of the day is "emotionally charged" as is your blind faith in globalization and human leaders. On top of that, television and internet viewing requires no attention span, no attention to detail, no memory required, nor do they require the effort of research. As I have posted elsewhere with my book links, my approach to this issue comes from a psychological, biological, and sociological level.

 

[notimp]

I do.

People will not read five books and arrive at the same conclusions as you have. People may have arrived at the same conclusions as you have - coming from entirely different fields, and through different approaches. Thats why public discussions are important (in the political field).

Thats also where emotionally charged arguments "work best", thats why I preferably attack them (with words ) first, if I dont agree with them.

In your case I saw you listing several issues starting off with NWO as the first, without a specific angle or comment, but with a list of books to read. I went from there... (Reacted with schema F response.. )

I also provided an interesting link, from a "NWO financed thinktank."

edit: I'll read some of your texts btw.

 

[notimp]

I've quick read Phaedrus by Plato. Interesting text. It goes from basic universal truths:

And therefore I bid farewell to all this; the common opinion is enough for me. For, as I was saying, I want to know not about this, but about myself: am I a monster more complicated and swollen with passion than the serpent Typho, or a creature of a gentler and simpler sort, to whom Nature has given a diviner and lowlier destiny?

Towards the duality of man (rational, emotional).

Towards the philosophy of love.

Towards definitions of madness.

Towards the nature of man.

And maybe of ambition.

Towards the nature of rhetoric.

Towards different modalities of rhetoric.

Towards rhetoric mastery (unattainable, undesireable?)

Towards the motivation of still engaging in rhetoric exercise.


In between its filled with allegory and imagery thats lofty and metaphysical - so it can be literally anything and everything to everyone who reads it. But still, its not... dumb...

What I take from it is simply the first paragraph quoted. Which I dont like. And maybe some other elaborations on different states of human nature, which I might revisit.

It doesnt show any ambition to make a specific point in particular, and most of the talk about different forms and aspects of rhetoric, I already knew in passing, or practice...

Oh, and everyone should learn what the term sophist means, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist Always fun to revisit debates on that topic.. (= basically PR work in todays parlance.. )

If you took something entirely different out of it, thats the problem with texts such as these.

 

[kuwanger]

New World Order. Globalization.

Whether we like it or not, we have the old world order and now the new world order; the shadow players are much the same but the stage is different. It's not really even necessarily bigger--imperialism isn't a new thing.

All Eggs in One Basket.

Nothing about open borders means an end to citizenship rules or separate governments with substantially different cultures, values, and mindsets. Only in terms of disease do I see "all eggs in one basket", and for that we're been in that space for over a century with the development of rapid movement of people--where rapid then was on the order of weeks. With airplanes, it's now hours and so the more virulent of plagues could cause massive damage. Open borders don't substantially change this.

Global Dictatorship through Technology, etc.

If dictatorship will come, it will not be global. The ambition of men is to be ruler of their own kingdom, not to be the vassal of another. There's a reason 1984 has 90% of the population as proles. Or how in Brave New World (and many others) has most the population drugged. One could see this as a statement of oppression, but as China shows it's more than a great many people aren't interested in the power struggles of government* so long as their government, dictatorship or democracy, does not personally effect them too much. It's also, honestly, a massive shortcut in the writing of science fiction to dismiss most the population as irrelevant, as it ignores how often that 90% being undone in their lives leads to revolution--and yes, quite frequently the new government is as bad as the old one.

My point is, it's too much an oversimplification to believe a few shadow figures can control the world. Meaningful control cannot happen in many ways or the people will result. The rest, most people don't care about and it's hard to argue is control at all. That one person has a number in an electronic record shifted left 10 times** more than another? If that's all it is, and it means nothing to the lives of anyone, who cares? It is where effect matters, not per se were some regimes are classified as dictatorships in principle. In practice, harm matters and should be the standard to look for and judge.

* Local corruption that gets people out of murder charges? Yea, that's sadly too often the case. Look no further than the current college scandal and how legal donations to the same effect are noted, but there's virtually no scorn in comparison. Ah, yes, "fraud" is why we should be upset. It's not the fundamental point that money buys influence and power. It's this power that perpetuates abuse without consequence. You don't need a dictatorship for that.

** Aka 1024 times as much money.

 

[DuoForce]

No, it already ruined Europe.

 

[XDel]

Whether we like it or not, we have the old world order and now the new world order; the shadow players are much the same but the stage is different. It's not really even necessarily bigger--imperialism isn't a new thing.



Nothing about open borders means an end to citizenship rules or separate governments with substantially different cultures, values, and mindsets. Only in terms of disease do I see "all eggs in one basket", and for that we're been in that space for over a century with the development of rapid movement of people--where rapid then was on the order of weeks. With airplanes, it's now hours and so the more virulent of plagues could cause massive damage. Open borders don't substantially change this.



If dictatorship will come, it will not be global. The ambition of men is to be ruler of their own kingdom, not to be the vassal of another. There's a reason 1984 has 90% of the population as proles. Or how in Brave New World (and many others) has most the population drugged. One could see this as a statement of oppression, but as China shows it's more than a great many people aren't interested in the power struggles of government* so long as their government, dictatorship or democracy, does not personally effect them too much. It's also, honestly, a massive shortcut in the writing of science fiction to dismiss most the population as irrelevant, as it ignores how often that 90% being undone in their lives leads to revolution--and yes, quite frequently the new government is as bad as the old one.

My point is, it's too much an oversimplification to believe a few shadow figures can control the world. Meaningful control cannot happen in many ways or the people will result. The rest, most people don't care about and it's hard to argue is control at all. That one person has a number in an electronic record shifted left 10 times** more than another? If that's all it is, and it means nothing to the lives of anyone, who cares? It is where effect matters, not per se were some regimes are classified as dictatorships in principle. In practice, harm matters and should be the standard to look for and judge.

* Local corruption that gets people out of murder charges? Yea, that's sadly too often the case. Look no further than the current college scandal and how legal donations to the same effect are noted, but there's virtually no scorn in comparison. Ah, yes, "fraud" is why we should be upset. It's not the fundamental point that money buys influence and power. It's this power that perpetuates abuse without consequence. You don't need a dictatorship for that.

** Aka 1024 times as much money.

We are already dictated to, no need to look for 1984 when Brave New World arrived a long time ago. We are complacent and just go along without ever once questioning our culture let alone the limitations of this Lower Germanic language that we all seem to be using now a days as opposed to something with more depth and connection to reality such as French or even Sanskrit.

 

[zft]

deleted