morphism
live long and prosper
No bio...
User ID: 2721
morphism
live long and prosper
8mo ago
The issue is not whether these arguments sound as if they could be logically compelling — the issue is whether these arguments actually are. Closer inspection reveals that they lack substance.
- The "overcrowding" argument applies to in-country movement of natives as well. By the same argument, from one part of the country to the other, or from countryside to cities would be detrimental. But people — native or not — move to cities because the concentration of people enables new kinds of services and collective works that would otherwise not be sustainable or even possible.
- That's a general argument against a higher standard of living — so why not lower the standard of living for the natives and then let the immigrants come? Another option would be to keep the immigrants where they are — and also force the other countries to stay poor at gunpoint.
- The culture argument is the only one where I see some merit, though it hinges on 1) the assumption that people do not adapt, and 2) that culture rather than power structures determine the success of individual countries.
In order to be logical, the arguments must hold up when replacing words, such as "immigrant" by "native", and they do not.
The common theme behind all these arguments against immigration is that they do not make sense as logical arguments for organizing how people can or should live together — but the core theme is "there is not enough for all of us!" and therefore "we need to cast out some people (based on random criteria)!".
Essentially, the premise is that "it's a game of musical chairs" and "we need to stop more people from playing", but the mental effort devoted to preventing people from getting in would be much better devoted to changing the game.
morphism
live long and prosper
8mo ago
You can posit that immigration cannot possibly be bad because of logical reasons and that even right-wingers know this, as made evident through their revealed preferences.
Sticking to logical reasoning: Could you please make the case for why immigration is bad again? Last time I asked this question here on the Motte, the reply I got was that "immigrants are doing personal harm to me", but the chain of reasoning did not hold up on further questioning.
morphism
live long and prosper
8mo ago
Leftists do this. Rightists do this.
The thing is that this is not true. As far as I can tell, the left is providing logically sound analysis and reasoning on the nature of reality and how to change it — ignoring some more extreme bubbles for the sake of argument — whereas the right is predominantly trying to frame the discussion in terms of tribes (as you are), which ignores basic principles of epistemology.
The case in point is immigration. (You and me had an exchange of posts about this.) A core sentiment on the right is that immigration is bad, but a rational analysis comes to the conclusion that it's not possible for both of the following statements to be true: immigrants taking jobs (net) and immigrants taking freebies from social security (net). It is telling that Trump is currently talking about reversing course due to business relying on immigrant workers — he got hit by reality.
morphism
live long and prosper
11mo ago
I'd like to stop and ask just in case you're serious.
What do you mean? I'm not quite sure how to read your reply as a question; my best guess is that you're asking "Are you serious?" and my answer to that is "Yes".
(As for trolling: I don't troll and I abhor it. Unfortunately, I don't know how to prove otherwise to you — it is in the nature of trolling that the troll claims to not troll, and that it's hard to verify that. The next best thing I can give you is my word.
More generally, I think it's generally bad epistemology (= the philosophy of knowledge) to judge statements based on what I believe about the intentions or situation of the person making the statements. Example: I have studied mathematics. If a homeless person were to walk up to me, and claimed that they had solved one of the millenium problems, and that they are about to explain the solution to me, then I would stop and listen (for a couple of minutes at least), because the truth of their statements can be verified independently and does not depend on who delivers them — I can apply the rules of logical reasoning to check whether they are right or wrong. Likewise, just because a troll says it, it doesn't mean that it's false (or true).
Even more epistemology: For every statement I hear, say "X is bad for you", I have come into the habit of forming the opposite in my head, "X is good for you", play a few "mental chess moves" of what consequences this would have. If I don't find a contradiction quickly, then I have to seriously consider the idea "X is good for you", even if my original gut feeling was "X is bad for you". Doesn't feel pretty, but if I want to know what "X" really is, then I have no choice. )
No, it's sound. Any logically correct argument against "immigration" needs to be robust under switching the word "immigrant" with the word "native" or "human". It has nothing to do with morals, it's about the logical structure of the argument. Any argument of the form "More immigrants is bad because of X" that also generalizes to "More people is bad because of X" cannot be an argument against immigrants — it's an argument against people, including natives.
In order to be a genuine argument against "immigration", the structure of the argument must rely on a material distinguishing characteristic between "immigrant" and "native". That's where the culture argument has some merit, but the first two do not. "Is not a citizen of the country" is not a material distinction.
More options
Context Copy link