What is the evil in this?

[Al B. Sure!]

at the video

What the **** are people "giving away" by allowing people to move to their country, you **** (and please, "****" is a reserved keyword that only I should be allowed to employ)

It can't be the "land", because land is still bought and sold by owners

It can't really be publicly owned natural resources, because England barely has any, and at any rate, the government is in net debt

It can't be capital, because capital is owned by its owners

What is it, exactly? The class being claimed as a victim is, in fact, the net recipient of government largesse. They are not being expropriated when people move to the country. So what right should they have to claim victimhood here? What of theirs is being taken?

They're racists. That's all there is to it.

[KrazyHorse]

What if the immigrants were machines that did the same work and consumed the same things (housing, food, etc). Should the general populace get a veto over my choice to build such machines?

[Al B. Sure!]

What if the immigrants were machines that did the same work and consumed the same things (housing, food, etc). Should the general populace get a veto over my choice to build such machines?

machines don't consume food, silly.

[KrazyHorse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol

[Heraclitus]

It can't be the "land", because land is still bought and sold by owners

Can't it? Sure I don't loose any land I own but NAM immigrants sure can reduce the value of my land. The simplest mechanism is of course White flight. NAM free neighborhoods with low levels of crime and decent schools become more and more expensive as the numbers of NAMs increase and as the government tries more and more in vain to subsidize them into decent neighborhoods. One could also make a overpopulation argument for the British isles and places like the Netherlands or Belgium but not of course for low density countries like say Slovenia.

It can't really be publicly owned natural resources, because England barely has any, and at any rate, the government is in net debt

Do you implicitly concede that a such argument can be made for say Saudi Arabia or Norway?

The class being claimed as a victim is, in fact, the net recipient of government largesse. They are not being expropriated when people move to the country. So what right should they have to claim victimhood here? What of theirs is being taken?

Well lower class Whites in Europe are net recipients of largess. Why would they want competition? And make no mistake no European country has a mix of Thrid worlder in recent decades that wouldn't result in them becoming tax eaters. Especially competition that has a edge since it has welfare specifically targeted at it in the forms of various affirmative action like initiatives.

What is it, exactly? What of theirs is being taken?

A loss in the subjective feeling in quality of life, fewer friends, less expectations of others cooperating, lower possibility of collective action, increase in zero sum thinking, lower confidence in government and media a drop in voluntary charity and volunteering. Some here may scoff at such claims but these are the results of lowered trust, and as I am sure you are aware ethnic diversity has been shown to lower trust.

Would you agree that the wast masses of the people dislike great inequality? If so don't you conceded that importing less productive people into a previously homogeneous relatively highly productive country like say South Korea will increase inequality? Would you agree that people derive some pride and indirect benefits by living in a country with a high GDP per capita?

GDP per capita must fall in real terms once a threshold is crossed if you have an increasing underclass and a decreasing net tax payer class and social mobility is for whatever reason (due to real differences in ability or new barriers to entry) falling. Sure the White morlocks are ever expanding, but why compound the problem by importing new ones?

What sense does it make for a declining aging higher productive people to try and solve this problem by importing a expanding lower productive people? Instead of helping to support the crazy pension plans the new immigrants actvley compete with the ever more limited resources of the government.

What if the immigrants were machines that did the same work and consumed the same things (housing, food, etc). Should the general populace get a veto over my choice to build such machines?

If immigrants where owned and given the same ethical considerations that machines do, if immigrants didn't have the right to vote, ect. (I'll assume the loss of life, health and property that increased crime imports can be abstracted away by a making the machines slightly unsafe for use. I'll also assume falling in love with the machines is not to much a stretch.)

Yes I would not object to the machines being built! Especially since the machines could be at any point disassembled with little frustration, and that once technology improves in the coming decades (GE, cybernetics) people would not object to them being upgraded to match the quality of the other machines we used to build in great quantity but can't seem to anymore. From the responses of even people like HC to genetic engineering this is not at all certain that this can be done with people without massive backlash.



Now let me ask you this way. Say politicians could build machines that would collect a moderate amount of welfare, would self replicate and would vote with 90% fidelity for those politicians who help them keep welfare?
Would you allow new such machines to be built?

If so why would such machines all being like that or just on net being like that make a huge difference? I'm mean sure if they are just on average like that you can surely find a way to ensure all the ones you build or import are on average a bit more the way you would like them, but this isn't happening in Europe.

So we've come to the conclusion that the government keeping its hands out of peoples lives and allowing de facto voluntary segregation and freedom of association can solve things like lower trust and perhaps even White flight. Brutal slavery or at the very least a limiting of suffrage can take care of the rest of the problems. Some might claim the first is doable or even ethical. Very few would claim the second is.

This still leaves aside the fact that people are naturally nepotistic. Genetic interests are being hurt. No matter how you spin things for the individual squirrel the red squirrel is still loosing its habitat because of the introduction of the gray Eastern squirrel. The world at large of course dosen't care which squirrel does its thing. Unlike squirrels however people can be aware of their own groups demise, and most people do put some value on that. A slight exception to this are WEIRD people to some extent, however not all Whites are WEIRD and I think its not a stretch that a smaller proportion of them will be in the coming decades.

Seeing your tribe (be it a sports team or nation or clan) win or do well does incur psychological benefits and increases happiness. Racial minorities tend to see themselves as tribes of this kind.

[Heraclitus]

They're racists. That's all there is to it.

Taken to its logical conclusion the idea of racism will come to encompass any form of nepotism, even preferring to have your own biological children to adopted ones.

I prefer to help people the more strongly they are related to me in the clannish spirit of that old Arab proverb:
"I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, us three against the world"

Nothing magical happens when you examine how you should help your cousin when compared to how you help your daughter, except that your daughter takes priority and that you should in general help your cousin less. Equally nothing magical happens when going from my cousin to a more distant relative, the person just slides lower on the scale of me caring and helping. And ultimately a racial group is a somewhat inbreed extended family. I consider animal welfare on the same scale, and because they are so different I object to the mistreatment of most animals not because of the animals themselves (the great apes are a notable exception) but because of what the mistreatment does to most people doing the mistreating.

Altruism towards those who are not punished if they don't reciprocate or are not similar to you in some genetic or memetic fashion is a horridly maladaptive trait. A good strategy is nice and is forgiving but one needs to retaliate for defection.

[Al B. Sure!]

Taken to its logical conclusion the idea of racism will come to encompass any form of nepotism, even preferring to have your own biological children to adopted ones.

I prefer to help people the more strongly they are related to me in the clannish spirit of that old Arab proverb:
"I against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, us three against the world"

Nothing magical happens when you examine how you should help your cousin when compared to how you help your daughter, except that your daughter takes priority and that you should in general help your cousin less. Equally nothing magical happens when going from my cousin to a more distant relative, the person just slides lower on the scale of me caring and helping. And ultimately a racial group is a somewhat inbreed extended family. I consider animal welfare on the same scale, and because they are so different I object to the mistreatment of most animals not because of the animals themselves (the great apes are a notable exception) but because of what the mistreatment does to most people doing the mistreating.

Altruism towards those who are not punished if they don't reciprocate or are not similar to you in some genetic or memetic fashion is a horridly maladaptive trait. A good strategy is nice and is forgiving but one needs to retaliate for defection.

Yup. You're a racist.

[kittenOFchaos]

Given we Britons have emigrated all over the World, it is abit rich to not expect other peoples to do the same.

The logic of the man in the video, was pretty inbred. You get born, you get married you have far too many kids and you sell fish in the same crappy town. How dull and given that the numbers keep on going up...unsustainable.

[Heraclitus]

Yup. You're a racist.

Racist in the sense of hating other people, hurting them or wishing them ill, no. Racist in the sense of taking care of family, you bet.

Any case why was this worth posting? Also when will you stop being racist and share your house with that hobo you saw last week.

[Al B. Sure!]

Racist in the sense of hating other people, hurting them or wishing them ill, no. Racist in the sense of taking care of family, you bet.

Any case why was this worth posting? Also when will you stop being racist and share your house with that hobo you saw last week.

Yet you would do more for that hobo if he were an ethnic Slovenian than you would if he were Sudanese.

Anyone else here besides Hera want to admit that, all else being equal, they would treat a white person better than an Asian or whoever else simply because of differing ethnicity and not treat them equally?

[Heraclitus]

Given we Britons have emigrated all over the World, it is abit rich to not expect other peoples to do the same.

The logic of the man in the video, was pretty inbred. You get born, you get married you have far too many kids and you sell fish in the same crappy town. How dull and given that the numbers keep on going up...unsustainable.

By your very own logic you should be thanking him. Europeans and Japanese don't breed, their numbers are falling, lots of room for trees for you to hug. Africans built societies that always grow to the Malthusian limit.

By importing Third world into the West not only do you ensure they either:
a) Never ever assimilate or reach the Wester standard of living (if so why does it help to bring them here?)
b) They achieve a modicum of prosperity but also approach Westerners in their burden upon the environment

Reality is always somewhere between a and b, but to think that new immigrants will take route c that leftie greenies hope of continuing to live modestly but improving living standards throught use of more expensive green technology has been shown not to ever happen.

Regardless if they are closer to a or b true they usually keep breeding (example: Mexicans in the US have about a 0,8 kids more than the Mexican average), so eventually once the West is devoid of Westerners nations such as the UK will sport populations of 100+ million and will be horridly overpopulated. Japan on the other hand will have a small and stable population (perhaps around 50 million when it stabilizes) with a large part of the island probably returned to nature. Or robots.

[Heraclitus]

Yet you would do more for that hobo if he were an ethnic Slovenian than you would if he were Sudanese.

Yes.

I would do even more for the hobo if he was my cousin, I'd probably get him into a center or into rehab. If he was my son, damn I would let him move in despite his alcohol/meth/whatever got him there habit.

I'm not saying that's nice. But to call it evil is overblown. A great ill of our current times is that we confuse being ethical or even moral with being nice. I have special obligations to my children, I have special obligations to my old mother, I have special obligations towards Slovenians, I have special obligations towards humans that I don't have towards sentient AIs, aliens or nonsentient animals.

You seem to think this makes me give less to the Sudanese hobo than I would give If I didn't follow this ethical system. No it doesn't. It makes me give my son/daughter/neice/coethnic more than I would give the generic average hobo. Unless you live in a zero sum world I don't think you can argue everyone isn't better off by this.

However you misunderstand I would never treat them differently if all else was equal, I'm just pointing out that genetics ensures all else can't be equal until we are uploaded into computers or genetically modified.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yes.

I would do even more for the hobo if he was my cousin, I'd probably get him into a center or into rehab. If he was my son, damn I would let her move in despite his alcohol/meth/whatever got him there habit.


However you misunderstand I would never treat them differently if all else was equal, I'm just pointing out that genetics ensures all else can't be equal until we are uploaded into computers or genetically modified.

Hera, that is all racist...

I guarantee you if I posed the question, no one would say yes!

[Heraclitus]

Damn, I update the answer a sec before you posted, read it again.


Also I don't see what you are saying. You are calling me racist without defining which of the different meanings of the word you use.

I'm not saying that's nice. But to call it evil is overblown. A great ill of our current times is that we confuse being ethical or even moral with being nice. I have special obligations to my children, I have special obligations to my old mother, I have special obligations towards Slovenians, I have special obligations towards humans that I don't have towards sentient AIs, aliens or nonsentient animals.

You seem to think this makes me give less to the Sudanese hobo than I would give If I didn't follow this ethical system. No it doesn't. It makes me give my son/daughter/neice/coethnic more than I would give the generic average hobo. Unless you live in a zero sum world I don't think you can argue everyone isn't better off by this.

Can you get past calling me racist without elaborating and respond to the italicized paragraph?

Can you grasp why I can give more in total if I give disproportionately to my children, friends and relatives? Can you see why from a rule utilitarian perspective I figure this is more ethical if I care about human happiness?

[Heraclitus]

Also if you found out the son you never helped raise was a hobo wouldn't you help him more than the generic hobo?