Back in January, I made a long posting in which I posited a platinum rule, that in multipolar situations, the moral action is to co-operate rather than defect, even if superficially one suffers for doing so.
Agreed, in many senses it would be nice if there was complete freedom to migrate anywhere in the world, thereby promoting parity between people everywhere. The problem is: which nation is willing to be first to operate an open-door immigration policy?
Amsterdam, for example, is very liberal in a variety of ways. That's commendable. On the other hand, because it's the place to go if you want to smoke dope and watch women insert bananas, it's become a sleazy dive. If everywhere allowed that, Amsterdam would be a far more pleasant place. They're doing the right thing, and they're suffering. (Note that I'm not saying it's right to smoke dope and watch women insert bananas; I'm just saying it's wrong to legislate against it.)
The other problem is that we don't see very much wrong with institutions such as national parks, where there are strict controls on new development and therefore, in effect, population controls. Why, when it comes right down to it, should one person get a lovely house beside Ullswater and another a semi in Cumbernauld? The thinking is that some areas should remain "unspoiled", and it's easy to see how that thinking could extend to the national level. Bhutan as a Country Of Outstanding Natural Beauty, for example?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-07-02 08:58 pm (UTC)Agreed, in many senses it would be nice if there was complete freedom to migrate anywhere in the world, thereby promoting parity between people everywhere. The problem is: which nation is willing to be first to operate an open-door immigration policy?
Amsterdam, for example, is very liberal in a variety of ways. That's commendable. On the other hand, because it's the place to go if you want to smoke dope and watch women insert bananas, it's become a sleazy dive. If everywhere allowed that, Amsterdam would be a far more pleasant place. They're doing the right thing, and they're suffering. (Note that I'm not saying it's right to smoke dope and watch women insert bananas; I'm just saying it's wrong to legislate against it.)
The other problem is that we don't see very much wrong with institutions such as national parks, where there are strict controls on new development and therefore, in effect, population controls. Why, when it comes right down to it, should one person get a lovely house beside Ullswater and another a semi in Cumbernauld? The thinking is that some areas should remain "unspoiled", and it's easy to see how that thinking could extend to the national level. Bhutan as a Country Of Outstanding Natural Beauty, for example?