How anti-liberalism went global

[JA]

How anti-liberalism went global

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For those interested in the highlights of Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s speech, which provide a basic summary of the tenets of this anti-liberal, transnational, nationalist right, I will quote it below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Thank you for the excellent link, even if it is a little frightening, for "Christian democracy" is quite clearly neither Christian nor democratic.

[mvd10]

The far-right has been rising in Europe since atleast the early 2000s. If anything America was really late. And unlike in America the European centre-right has been holding up relatively well, though there are some problems on the horizon.

Anti-liberalism is most common in Eastern European countries without a long democratic history. Those countries are filled with people who care more about stability than democracy. Western far-right parties are dodgy, but I wouldn't call them hostile to liberal democracy in the same way as Fidesz or PiS are. Trump seems to be the exception with his strongman rhetoric, but I strongly doubt he's a serious threat to American democracy. He's not popular at all and most of his party isn't really on board with him. Orbán is popular in Hungary and Fidesz is fully on board with Orbán, that's why he can push through his illiberal agenda.

Thank you for the excellent link, even if it is a little frightening, for "Christian democracy" is quite clearly neither Christian nor democratic.

I guess you're right if you're referring to Orbán but he is not a traditional European Christian democrat. Even though I'm not a fan of European Christian democratic swamp parties I think it's a bit unfair to call them that. Christian democrats historically have been the most pro-EU force in Europe.

[pbrower2a]

Except that Donald Trump is completely plutocratic in his social ideology, and he is by no means a devout Christian (is Orban?) this sounds like what Donald Trump believes in for white American Christians.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)? 

[mvd10]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)? 

Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)? 

Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way. 

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

[mvd10]

Personally I'm sympathetic to limiting mass immigration from Islamic countries because of social stability and the reactionary values some Islamic immigrants have. But I also strongly oppose Orbán's vision of Europe. I'm a Dutch liberal, I don't want to fight for Dutch 'Judeo-Christian values', I'm a fan of Enlightenment values. I guess Enlightenment values were rooted in Judeo-Christian culture, but it's obvious that Orbán and most right-wing populists have completely different values than me.

I'm happy with secularization and I don't really mind the decline of Dutch Christianity. It's negative side effects (lack of social cohesion?) can be solved in other ways. In the Netherlands of the 1950s women were fired once they married and the pastor told you how to vote. That's the true heritage of Dutch Christianity, and that's exactly why I don't want to take in many Islamic immigrants to repeat that. Like I said, just like Orbán I oppose Islamic mass immigration. But I don't want Orbán's Christian Europe. It sucked. Orbán probably is an anti-semite too. I want a free and liberal/libertarian Europe.

[JA]

Personally I'm sympathetic to limiting mass immigration from Islamic countries because of social stability and the reactionary values some Islamic immigrants have. But I also strongly oppose Orbán's vision of Europe. I'm a Dutch liberal, I don't want to fight for Dutch 'Judeo-Christian values', I'm a fan of the our liberal and humanist heritage of our 'Golden Age' (liberal and humanist compared to the rest of 1600s Europe, it still was extremely reactionary by modern standards obviously). I guess the relative tolerance of 1600s the Netherlands was rooted in Judeo-Christian culture, but it's obvious that Orbán and most right-wing populists have completely different values than me.

I'm happy with secularization and I don't really mind the decline of Dutch Christianity. It's negative side effects (lack of social cohesion?) can be solved in other ways. In the Netherlands of the 1950s women were fired once they married and the pastor told you how to vote. That's the true heritage of Dutch Christianity, and that's exactly why I don't want to take in many Islamic immigrants to repeat that. Like I said, just like Orbán I oppose Islamic mass immigration. But I don't want Orbán's Christian Europe. It sucked. Orbán probably is an anti-semite too. I want a free and liberal/libertarian Europe.

And, honestly, I’m quite sympathetic to your viewpoint. If I was Dutch, for example, I’d likely be at least highly skeptical of continued large scale immigration prior to the integration of existing immigrants and their descendants. There’s an undeniably significant risk for cultural clashing between Europeans and Middle Eastern and African immigrants; and European societies do not need to risk that or tolerate the types of conservative cultural values that many immigrant communities import with them. It doesn’t mean end immigration, shut out all asylum seekers, or turn your back on all refugees. But, European immigration and ability to integrate immigrants is considerably different from America’s situation (where I am a staunch advocate of large-scale immigration).

[Bojack Horseman]

I’m taking bets on which country elects the next Hitler and starts WWIII. When the far right gains power, that’s what happens.

[Zaybay]

I will go against the grain and bash this take on geopolitics. It is one that is too grounded in the current political order to realize that this is not whats occurring.

1. There is no uniform rise of far rightism in the world- Those who believe this idea will point to Trump, LePen, and Italy to say that this is true. But its important to note what these parties actually stand for, and what is actually occurring. Trump won a squeaker election and is historically unpopular. LePen was only in the election due to a split field. And The far right only won about 20%, it was just that the biggest party decided to pair up with them.

What does seem to be rising, however, is a hatred of the old world order. A hatred of neoliberalism. In the French election, the far-left candidate almost made it into 2nd, but lost by 1%, in Italy, the party that won the most, M5S, ran on many socialist policies, and in the USA, it seem that the Democratic Party is starting to flirt more and more with DS ideals. It seems that its the center that has died, not birth of the far right.

2. Its not always right wingers that rise- In many European countries, it has been the right that has risen. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, The Netherlands, all have seen a rise in the right. But many have seen a rise in the Left. In Spain, the Conservative party has fallen, and the Social Democratic Party, that has taken a rather left turn, has been gaining more and more. In The UK, the Tories are collapsing as Corbyn stands, waiting to take the reigns from May. In the USA, The Democrats, in 2020 or 2024, will be pushing left wing policies unheard of in American Politics. Australia has seen a resurgent Labor, with a much larger Left Wing, challenge the dominant Conservatives. As I stated before, it seems like a hatred of the status quo, of neoliberalism, that is actually occurring.

3. This is not permanent and there will be no WW3- What is going on is a change in the overtures of politics. The center is being deserted, and thirdwayism is dying. But this does not mean its forever. Remember, many countries used to be Communist just 40 years back, and the monarchies of old are gone. And Far rightism has mostly come from the dissatisfaction of the refugee crisis, and the lack of economic growth after 2008. Now that its over, and economic growth is back on track, its very possible that the ideology will not get off the ground. Its also possible that it will become the new political order. We just cant see yet.

[BoAtlantis]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)?  

Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way.  

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

Culture is merely a symptom of perpetuating habits and preference. I don’t see where we can claim culture is a right.

A neighborhood that’s overwhelmingly Christian has no right to prevent someone from building a mosque, for example.

A blue neighborhood cannot prevent a Trump voter from moving into their town.

I won’t address how much influx of immigration is acceptable because that part is unclear to me.

Culture is definitely one of the weaker arguments, and I do not feel empathy for people who try to stomp on prospective would-be immigrants’ rights by hiding behind cultural preservation.

[American_Aristocracy]

My bets is that the international trade will fail and give rise to nationalist parties after a lingering world depression.

[pbrower2a]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)?  

Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way.  

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

Culture is merely a symptom of perpetuating habits and preference. I don’t see where we can claim culture is a right.

But people have the right to determine what culture they want, especially if they find that the one that they knew either is vacant or has 'scorpions in its soul'. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it has the right to resist a whorehouse. This said, I do not have to like Islam to say something like "better the mosque than the whorehouse".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moving into my neighborhood was not the problem. I felt very lonely when all of my neighbors had "TRUMP/PENCE"  yard signs, and I had only the yard sign for my congressional representative. Those signs stayed up into the winter as a reminder of how 'wrong' I was to not believe in Donald Trump.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is Hispanic culture that different from WASP culture?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The center of Western Christian Civilization has moved from Europe to Latin America. For purposes of defining culture, Latin America now includes large sections of the United States

[BoAtlantis]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)?  

Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way.  

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

Culture is merely a symptom of perpetuating habits and preference. I don’t see where we can claim culture is a right.

But people have the right to determine what culture they want, especially if they find that the one that they knew either is vacant or has 'scorpions in its soul'.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it has the right to resist a whorehouse. This said, I do not have to like Islam to say something like "better the mosque than the whorehouse".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moving into my neighborhood was not the problem. I felt very lonely when all of my neighbors had "TRUMP/PENCE"  yard signs, and I had only the yard sign for my congressional representative. Those signs stayed up into the winter as a reminder of how 'wrong' I was to not believe in Donald Trump.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is Hispanic culture that different from WASP culture?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The center of Western Christian Civilization has moved from Europe to Latin America. For purposes of defining culture, Latin America now includes large sections of the United States

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two points,

1) I agree everyone has the right to determine what culture he wants. But whose culture? His own?
If so, I agree. I can only determine my culture, such as what music I like or what language I wish to speak. I have no right to determine how you or others display your own culture.

Why exactly must collective culture supersede immigrant's rights to move? There are many landlords that would happily rent to them and vendors that would buy and sell with them. It's your right to disassociate with them but you can't tell me that I cannot associate with common would-be immigrants.

Are you saying our mere minor discomfort of cultural yield outweighs people's natural rights to seek their destiny?

2) Also, if collective culture is important, then we must first work on kicking out Americans that don't conform to our culture. Let's start out by kicking peaceful Americans who may not watch football or may not speak English fluently or may not recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Does this seem ok to you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this not pretty much like opposition to SSM few years ago? I am a Christian as well but I sure have no right to force a whorehouse from not being built from a rightful property owner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're not in metro Detroit or Ann Arbor, I would imagine it was common to see Trump signs. People in living in apartments don't exactly put up Hillary sign. In fact, I hardly remember seeing a Hillary sign in Manhattan.

By the way, I don't claim that we must grant immigrants the rights to vote. I simply state my case that we have just one simple duty of not preventing majority of them from coming.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it was, it wouldn't matter too much, would it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing at least in my view.

But let's just grant that you and millions of others think that it's bad. I would like to add that I don't expect Americans to embrace other's culture. They only have to tolerate it.

[JA]

Anti-what kind of liberalism? classic? moderate? progressive? neo-progressive (i.e. regressive)?  

Probably globalism (free trade, liberal immigration laws, etc)

I think it's the fear over death of culture for those that don't feel "white guilt" over history.  People want their countries to protect their culture, and if it's historically white and Christian; they want it to stay that way.  

That's not racist in-and-of itself.  It's self-protection. You can have others come in but they have to assimilate into the culture, not fight against it or try to overthrow it.  But at least it seems in Europe, some are "tired" and have this nihilistic attitude that anything they do causes misery, so might as well let some other group of people take over.

And I can empathize with those that are clinging to their cultures.

Culture is merely a symptom of perpetuating habits and preference. I don’t see where we can claim culture is a right.

But people have the right to determine what culture they want, especially if they find that the one that they knew either is vacant or has 'scorpions in its soul'.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but it has the right to resist a whorehouse. This said, I do not have to like Islam to say something like "better the mosque than the whorehouse".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Moving into my neighborhood was not the problem. I felt very lonely when all of my neighbors had "TRUMP/PENCE"  yard signs, and I had only the yard sign for my congressional representative. Those signs stayed up into the winter as a reminder of how 'wrong' I was to not believe in Donald Trump.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is Hispanic culture that different from WASP culture?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The center of Western Christian Civilization has moved from Europe to Latin America. For purposes of defining culture, Latin America now includes large sections of the United States

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Two points,

1) I agree everyone has the right to determine what culture he wants. But whose culture? His own?
If so, I agree. I can only determine my culture, such as what music I like or what language I wish to speak. I have no right to determine how you or others display your own culture.

Why exactly must collective culture supersede immigrant's rights to move? There are many landlords that would happily rent to them and vendors that would buy and sell with them. It's your right to disassociate with them but you can't tell me that I cannot associate with common would-be immigrants.

Are you saying our mere minor discomfort of cultural yield outweighs people's natural rights to seek their destiny?

While I’m by no means anti-immigrant or immigrant reductionist in my stances, I nevertheless feel the need to confront these arguments.

You do realize that society is more than mere individuals, right? Humans do not exist in a vacuum; each of us springs forth from a particular culture, which is composed of particular habits, beliefs, and customs passed onto use by family, friends, peers, elders, educational systems, and other institutions in society. We are not humans, as properly understood, without this socialization; thus, we are not mere individuals nor do we have a self-crafted identity. We are the product of our individual psychology interacting with external social forces.

A person’s desire to self-actuality does not supersede a society’s right to decide whether it wants to welcome that person into their society. Nor does it override the right of that society to maintain and enforce expectations of cultural norms and continuity. That’d be a violation of not only the rights of that group, but of the individuals that compose said group. It really doesn’t matter what market forces or contractual arrangements between private individuals and/or businesses may seek to ignore the desire of the community; those are secondary and should be subservient to the interests of those it both directly and indirectly affects.

I’m summary: the desire of the individual does not override the will of the community. Period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagreements with or deviations from such cultural examples does not imply sufficient reason to “excommunicate” a person from their inherited culture. Cultures evolve and change - ideally, they do so organically. Part of American culture has been the freedom to disagree, express disagreement publicly, and also not be sheltered from the consequences of those disagreements. It’s something that was contractually and legally agreed upon through our nation’s Constitutional framework, and through years of cultural development wherein it was taught that dissent is a legally sanctioned aspect of America life that deserves protection.

To compare that to what you previously said is absurd - and you know it (or you should

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it our “duty” to not prevent the majority of immigrants from coming? Why is it that everyone must celebrate mass immigration? Why is denying the aspirations of one (or numerous outsiders) more important than denying the views of many or most of the “insiders”?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it was, it wouldn't matter too much, would it? [/quote]

For anyone who understands the complexity and severity of culture, the answer would be obvious. Yes, it would.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing at least in my view.

But let's just grant that you and millions of others think that it's bad. I would like to add that I don't expect Americans to embrace other's culture. They only have to tolerate it.
[/quote][/quote]

Why do they “have to tolerate it”? If the overwhelming majority of Americans felt passionately that they want all current and future immigration to cease indefinitely, would you rather their democratic voices be ignored or overruled, or would you prefer to abide by democratic norms?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This entire thread is TL,DR, so I’ll just imply something pejorative about “squishy liberalism”, clarify that I’m not an Orban fan, and call it a day.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I’m taking bets on which country elects the next Hitler and starts WWIII. When the far right gains power, that’s what happens.

What is terrifying is if Trump was president in the 1930's when Hitler came to power, Trump would admire Hitler's strong leader qualities.

[BoAtlantis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As usual, your summaries are eloquently written.

Can you prove that it is a right to preserve what you have described? A right to me seems to be relatively simple: to breathe, to speak, to practice religion, to buy or sell etc. Aversion to changes is not a right.

Moreover, let's say that I, like ICE, stopped you from walking to groceries to buy food for your family; I tell you my reason for restraining and handcuffing you was that I don't like your customs, beliefs, appearance, and my desire that's been passed down from my family, friends and peers justifies my terrible action.

Does this seem ok to you? If not, why must we enforce this to others?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're asserting that different cultural pov that's evolved internally is different from the one that's grown externally. Is this not just a nuanced way of saying foreigners' rights are less important?

Why is it absurd? American citizens should not be any more or less immune from being criticized for deviating away from the cultural norm. For example, if we force foreigners to speak fluent English before living here, then it would be appropriate to test Americans' literacy and kick them out if they don't sufficiently meet the standards.

There are Americans that burn the American flags but they have the right to stay here. I have a hard time believing that it is moral to prevent many respectful would-be immigrants that deserve to be here when we already keep the rights of flag burners.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certain things are widely shared morals that do not have to be written in the constitution. And if the Constitution violates human rights, then it is our duty to challenge, and override it through commonly shared morals. Saying "i merely follow the orders" is only something an authoritarian would justify.

If Americans can dissent from such norm, so can foreigners. Do foreigners not have human rights to practice or like certain aspects of life?

I can grant that Americans should perhaps have more access than foreigners do.
Perhaps Americans who have naturalized for 10+ years may be entitled to greater amount of welfare or disability checks; perhaps they can vote; perhaps they may be subject to less taxes. These things can be more like "club membership" privileges and benefits that club members can enjoy.

But as for the basic needs such as the rights to live, buy or sell common goods, or speak, they are entitled to every bit of that right as Americans do, because there are other Americans willing to associate with them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not claim we have to celebrate it.

See above again. A vast majority of foreigners would have succeeded in meeting their basic living requirements. Do they not have the right to live? Must they suffer in poverty in their homeland?

You can object that their misfortune is not our fault. Again, that is not my claim. You do not have to land a hand to a homeless person. But if I want to give him my money to assist him, then it's my right to. Why do you prevent me and others who may want to help foreigners?

Also, what if I deem that certain foreigners fit my cultural needs better than some Americans would? You're strongly presuming that I have the duty to prioritize my community. Not everyone likes their community. But they can invite foreigners to perhaps shape their community in more positive manners.

So why can I not with my resources, invite them and engage in voluntary exchanges to suit my needs? Why must community override my happiness? What if someone from a foreign country is willing to live with me, and I as a homeowner want to invite the person? The state is justified in screening for cultural needs, and making the person wait for possibly decades?

Are you not justifying mob mentality? The same mentality that made people opposed to interracial marriage? A white man can marry a black woman he wants to marry even if 99% of white and black community opposes it. Period.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As usual, your summaries are eloquently written.

Can you prove that it is a right to preserve what you have described? A right to me seems to be relatively simple: to breathe, to speak, to practice religion, to buy or sell etc. Aversion to changes is not a right.

Moreover, let's say that I, like ICE, stopped you from walking to groceries to buy food for your family; I tell you my reason for restraining and handcuffing you was that I don't like your customs, beliefs, appearance, and my desire that's been passed down from my family, friends and peers justifies my terrible action.

Does this seem ok to you? If not, why must we enforce this to others?

The issue of rights is a complicated one. The ones you listed are relatively self-obvious (at least in current Western society). What becomes more complicated is defining the rights of groups, such as the rights of Americans as citizens. Aversion to change is not a right, of course, but possessing the power to control and shape your destiny (as a group), within reasonable limits, certainly strikes me as a right. It’s the right of Americans, Germans, Japanese, Congolese, Jews, and so on. Each group has the right to set group standards and pursue policies or enforce social pressures to ensure group survival and success.

The reason we’re having this fundamental disagreement stems from our understanding of the issues of nationality, citizenship, individual, group, and human rights. You, if I am understanding you correctly, essentially view rights as largely universal and should apply to all humans relatively equally; barriers, such as borders and citizenship, are tantamount to violations of another individual’s superior rights to personal autonomy and desire for self-actualization. Borders and cultural groups that often define their in/out limitations through borders and citizenship laws are socially constructed hinderances to personal desire and, therefore, tantamount to a violation of human rights.

However, I disagree with that. I believe rights are more hierarchical and complex. The desire of the outsider to enter into the group, whether that means simply crossing borders, obtaining citizenship, or being welcomed as a member of the ingroup, does not supersede the right of group self-determination. I, as an American, do not have the right to go to Italy and be allowed permission into Italian society, whether it’s to work, permanently resettle, or anything. It’s the right of Italians to decide who they want to allow into their society, for how long, and how many. Our representative democratic models assume that elected officials speak on behalf of (or represent) the citizens, therefore whatever the Italians decide to enshrine into law regarding immigration via the state is an expression of their collective will and an act of self-determination. As a foreigner, that doesn’t violate my rights because I possess no inherent right to be in their society, regardless of how it affects me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're asserting that different cultural pov that's evolved internally is different from the one that's grown externally. Is this not just a nuanced way of saying foreigners' rights are less important?

Why is it absurd? American citizens should not be any more or less immune from being criticized for deviating away from the cultural norm. For example, if we force foreigners to speak fluent English before living here, then it would be appropriate to test Americans' literacy and kick them out if they don't sufficiently meet the standards.

There are Americans that burn the American flags but they have the right to stay here. I have a hard time believing that it is moral to prevent many respectful would-be immigrants that deserve to be here when we already keep the rights of flag burners.[/quote]

In short: yes, it is saying that foreigners’ rights are less important. That does not make them less important as human beings, endowed with basic human rights, but it does mean that when a foreign individual’s rights are placed against the interests or desires of the ingroup into which they’re attempting to enter, they are of secondary importance.

With that said, it should be understood that this does not mean a foreigner should automatically be denied entry, their rights ignored, or to be forced to remain in a dangerous situation in their homeland. As a (hopefully) humane society, we would open our doors for foreigners and invite them in; whether it’s for temporary shelter or as permanent members of our society. But, that should remain, at the end of the day, the choice of each society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certain things are widely shared morals that do not have to be written in the constitution. And if the Constitution violates human rights, then it is our duty to challenge, and override it through commonly shared morals. Saying "i merely follow the orders" is only something an authoritarian would justify.

If Americans can dissent from such norm, so can foreigners. Do foreigners not have human rights to practice or like certain aspects of life?

I can grant that Americans should perhaps have more access than foreigners do.
Perhaps Americans who have naturalized for 10+ years may be entitled to greater amount of welfare or disability checks; perhaps they can vote; perhaps they may be subject to less taxes. These things can be more like "club membership" privileges and benefits that club members can enjoy.

But as for the basic needs such as the rights to live, buy or sell common goods, or speak, they are entitled to every bit of that right as Americans do, because there are other Americans willing to associate with them.[/quote]

Of course the Constitution can change; if it comes into conflict with the interests of present society, then we have the right (legally and otherwise) to change our governing documents. But, constitutional laws are not all there is to morality and rights; it addresses only a portion. The rest is up to individuals and our society to determine.

On what grounds are they entitled to that though? I do not seek to keep anyone living in poverty or the looming threat of danger, I’d like to help personally and I’d like our country to help as well (inviting in more refugees, increasing foreign aid, stop the deadly and destabilizing wars). But, there simply is no reason for me to conclude that every person has the right to access the society established, maintained, and governed by members of a particular culture against the members of that society’s will.

Again, individuals do have rights, groups have rights, and foreigners have rights. But, they can often conflict; it’s the job of each society and its members to work out how they want to strike a balance. Do they want to completely ignore foreigners? Do they want to curtail the rights of individuals within their society to engage in consensual prostitution or expand rights to ensure every person has access to healthcare for free? That’s for each society and its members to decide. That’s the entire point of democracy, constitutional rights, and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not claim we have to celebrate it.

See above again. A vast majority of foreigners would have succeeded in meeting their basic living requirements. Do they not have the right to live? Must they suffer in poverty in their homeland?

You can object that their misfortunate is not our fault. Again, that is not my claim. You do not have to land a hand to a homeless person. But if I want to give him my money to assist him, then it's my right to. Why do you prevent me and others who may want to help foreigners?

Are you not justifying a mob mentality? The same mentality that made people opposed to interracial marriage? A white man can marry a black woman he wants to marry even if 99% of white and black community opposes it. Period.
[/quote][/quote]

You live in a society. It’s not just about you and your wishes. If you wish to run around naked and have consensual sex with others in front of a school, should you be allowed? It’s consensual, you aren’t physically harming anyone, and you aren’t restricting anyone’s rights in the process. If anything, by the law denying that to you, it’s restricting your rights as an individual. But, I think we can all agree that two consenting adults engaging in sex acts in public in front of minors should be a criminal offense, despite the restrictions it places upon individual pursuit of self-actualization and happiness. And those limitations will be imposed by the will of the society in which you live, and justified through the moral definitions of right and wrong shaped by that society’s culture.

Basically, there are limits to individual rights, wherein group rights supersede. Do you not agree? If you want to help foreigners financially or through volunteering, there’s nothing stopping you from contributing to charities, writing your Congressman on behalf of such issues, engaging in grassroots activism to persuade your fellow citizens to support or oppose your position on an issue, or traveling overseas, such as in the Peace Corps. In order to help, you don’t have to force a society that may be opposed to immigration and refugees to “tolerate” it.

There’s no mob mentality about it, unless you consider democracy a mob mentality.

[BoAtlantis]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here is a problem. (Apologies for including this in my previous post too late.)

What if I deem that foreigners fit my cultural needs better? What if I need foreigners to survive? What if there is no American willing to marry me, or willing to sell me goods or willing to help me but foreigner is willing to? And what if I want to invite the person? Why must the country stomp on my right to disassociate with an American and associate with a foreigner instead in America?

The American community is justified in preventing just because of their view of survival and success? What if I don't like it? Again, this brings us back to mob rule. Saying "too bad, then get out" is not a proper answer. There has to be a reasonable way for people to disassociate if they wish. Confining me based on brute social force is not a right.

I have my parcel of land (home) and you have yours. If the society determines I cannot invite the foreigner, then I don't really have a right to my home. But neither does any American. Everything is based on collective view and ownership.

If you believe that our homes are collectively owned by all Americans, then we can technically prevent any American from traveling to anywhere, even within the country, because none of us have ownership to our home. If you want to go home to your family, then 51% of Americans can decide to vote on it to prevent it. Would that be ok with you?

How can the country collectively own it, even though I paid for it with my money?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your view of me is accurate. Human rights are relatively pretty equal though I don't claim that someone with communicable diseases or terrorist record must also have the rights to immigrate. If consequence is terrible, the state is justified in preventing it.

The fact that someone was born in another land does not seem to me sufficiently convincing. Unless proven otherwise, I stand by it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not? My statement applies not just to America but to other countries.

I agree that there is no inherent right to be in a certain society. But there IS a right for the person to move to the person's home if the homeowner consents because landlord is willing to. There is a consent. Movement is a right to me. Just like you can walk to your groceries, school or work.

If a country can do so, then so can state and cities. Wouldn't the culture of NY be violated if someone from NJ decided to move to the state? Can New Yorkers collectively prevent him?

This mentality only seems to apply to country's needs. Therefore, it's your burden to prove what the country's boundary represents to the point that overwhelmingly exceeds the needs of states and cities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, their rights are perhaps less important. But what about millions of Americans' rights to associate with foreigners? Even granting that your view may be correct, once an American invites them, foreigners' rights become bolstered because they gained a permission from an American homeowner.

This only complicates rights. I prefer not to probe into when the natural rights to a land started. If I bought it using my money, I can do most things inside my home that doesn't harm others, including foreigners. And inviting foreigners doesn't seem like an immoral, criminal activity to me, just because the state says so.

The state making me wait a decade on the grounds I don't have the proper paperwork seems to me the more immoral action.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They do have that right, if they gained consent though. I'm a homeowner and so are millions of Americans. Not everyone wishes to invite a foreigner but I'm willing to.

Yes, if they do conflict, then we can carefully introspect to determine which rights are superior. How do I know so? See the grocery example earlier. If hundreds of people used mob rule to prevent you from buying goods, would that be ok?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I tolerate naked consensual sex; not that most would do such things. It's admittedly somewhat cringy to my eyes but if that's their enjoyment, who am I to stop them?

I only claim that collective mentality must supersede it if the consequences are terrible. If million Americans were to face a risk of allowing someone with communicable diseases, then we must prevent it.

Otherwise, individual right must triumph over mob rule. A group's right right to construct society is not an inherent right; and even if it was, they cannot stop someone from moving from places to places, especially knowing there is someone welcoming them. No one has ever said that democracy is perfect, hence my disagreement.

[JA]

@ BoAtlantis,

I think we’ve both said our peace on the issue. It’s obvious that we have radically different conceptions of rights and interpretations of how individual vs group rights should function. I’m simply not an individualist and have never claimed to be; I prioritize society over the individual, but not to the extent of disregarding individual rights. But, you nearly exclusively prioritize individual rights. That is simply incompatible with all evidence suggesting what is required for a healthy society to function. In my opinion, your belief system is deeply flawed and grounded in selfish desires.

[BoAtlantis]

@ BoAtlantis,

I think we’ve both said our peace on the issue. It’s obvious that we have radically different conceptions of rights and interpretations of how individual vs group rights should function. I’m simply not an individualist and have never claimed to be; I prioritize society over the individual, but not to the extent of disregarding individual rights. But, you nearly exclusively prioritize individual rights. That is simply incompatible with all evidence suggesting what is required for a healthy society to function. In my opinion, your belief system is deeply flawed and grounded in selfish desires.

I'll respectfully disagree, and leave it at that.

See how many and what kind of immigrants are merely "qualified" to even apply every year. The qualification is damn stringent to the point that asking for "legal immigration" is to be hiding behind the real issue.

Facilitating legal immigration is the real way to prevent illegal immigration. I think America can function well by giving a majority of them legal residence status only.

[Beet]

Shouldn't this be "how anti-liberalism went European"? This has been going on over there since the late 1990s.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I’m taking bets on which country elects the next Hitler and starts WWIII. When the far right gains power, that’s what happens.

What is terrifying is if Trump was president in the 1930's when Hitler came to power, Trump would admire Hitler's strong leader qualities.

"He said he didn't kill all those people. I believe him."