Hacker News Reader

Comment by Curious42 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure I fully understand your POV right, but I hope you're not suggesting that a person born within the confinement of certain national border should have the privilege of being a bigger priority when chosen for work within the same border confinement.

That's a bit ridiculous. A Syrian Software Engineer shouldn't have to work 1000x more than an American SE to get a job at Google HQ. Let the deserving be decided by their ability for the job rather than their birthplace.

It bothers me how we neglect to work towards a borderless planet. Sure, it wouldn't make sense in terms of economy, politics, and a lot of other things in the beginning, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it and envisioning it, and we even work towards formulating the logistics involved?

View on HN

If you consider individual actors as adversarial, it becomes less ridiculous quite quickly. Reframe the question as "Why would I, an American software engineer, give my Syrian competition an easier time?". If I have privilege and a family to raise, it makes sense to exploit that privilege rather than to give it up based on the assertion that my privilege is unfair. Often only the young have the privilege to give up their privilege so easily, because of their lacks of dependents.

>If you consider individual actors as adversarial, it becomes less ridiculous quite quickly. Reframe the question as "Why would I, an American software engineer, give my Syrian competition an easier time?".

Wrong framing, though. My adversary isn't some other worker. It's the guy who hires workers, works less or not at all, and takes home the profits.

Do you reject all candidates you interview because they might compete with you to avoid layoffs?

One hopes that when you hire a Syrian software engineer, both you and they will benefit. I'd certainly prefer to hire a good Syrian software engineer than a mediocre American one (and a good American one than a mediocre Syrian one, naturally), if we're hiring someone anyway.

I don't believe this was the point I was addressing in response to the grandparent. If two candidates appear where one has a much better skillset, it makes sense (in most frames) to accept the better candidate, I agree.

What I was responding to was how there may be no responsibility for the American to renounce his privilege such that the Syrian has an easier time becoming a possible candidate (Both in skill set as well as logistically). Additionally, it may even be irrational for the American to do so if we consider them as adversarial actors (In competition, unlike when recruiting co-workers).

Please understand my commentary here is simply in response to the equally extreme logic applied by the grandparent (A world of no nations/borders being optimal) and by no means constitutes my complete opinions on immigration, visas, and the like. We can hopefully elevate the discussion above, allowing immigrants only out of charity, to more rigorous reasons.

Help me understand why you see the idea of a borderless planet as an 'extreme' logic? I was merely proposing we work towards formulating legalities, economics, security, and other logistics involved such that it benefits the planet — rather than just nations — and consequently makes immigration easier.

I never mentioned about Syrian having it easier if the native candidate is more deserving, as you seem to claim I did. A lot of your comment has gone over my head due to it's convolutedness.

My apologies, I used the word extreme because it is one end of a spectrum, which is to change everything. I did not mean "extreme" as a value judgement as the word is often implicitly used as. My logic was also extreme in that it argued that nothing should be changed.

In regards to your second paragraph, I know you didn't and I hopefully didn't insinuate that you did. I'll try to clarify: Moving from the current system would be done by the American (Person of privilege) helping the Syrian compete for his job, which the American logically may not be interested in, given that it threatens his or her stability.

My apologies, again, if you believe my comment was convoluted. I can rephrase if you direct me to what specifically was difficult.

If you want to disregard economics, politics and a lot of other things (which is a big assumption, but let's continue with it), lets start with the first principles - why do you advocate borderless planet? Whats so compelling about it?

I'm not disregarding it. I'm suggesting we should be working towards formulating economics, politics and everything else which works out for a borderless planet.

In regards to why I advocate it - like I said, the way the system works today, some people have more privilege than the others, and this isn't by choice. We should be trying to bring everyone upto the same datum, not the other way around. While the current visa systems are not the texbook definition of discrimination, we are in some way still limiting people's choices based on the land they were born in.

If we're talking first principles, a human should be able to roam wherever he chooses. Of course, this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not advocating for terrorists to be able to make it through wherever they wish, but I'm sure if thought hard enough, we'll be able to come up with a system that ensures that a couple of groups of terrorist, and a few other kinds of knobheads don't pull their entire nations down. But right now, we're working in the opposite direction.

Can you clarify why a human has a right to roam to zones other humans have established for their own safety and prosperity? Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold, which seems to be as strong of an argument as the right to traverse arbitrary zones?

From the terrorist portion of your comment, it appears you agree that certain actors can be excluded. If we can exclude people from our tribal zones, then nations have strong logical foundations, as they are simply the manifestation of the ability of tribes to exclude others.

>Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold

They could, but they'd be dating back to the principles that were prevalent when various species of the Homo genus existed. When Sapiens were a threat to the Neanderthals, the Neanderthals a threat to the habilis etc. They were thought of as threats for similar reasons as you mentioned; one being more privileged than the other, which led to an insecurity.

A lot of factors such as the geography, and the natural resources that companions the land play a huge factor in the well-being of the society. From what you're suggesting, I get the idea that you want that to remain as a given privilege that should only be cherished by the people who were born around it. That a human born in terrible conditions is a threat to the more affluent, and it's resources and security, solely because the latter was born in a better habitat.This doesn't seem very different to me than the ideologies adopted by the tribes and the cavemen that date back to tens of thousands of years.

I hope I'm not coming off too strong with my words. The language is my barrier, and I've been known to go off on a tangent sometimes due to that. I hope you understand.

Can you clarify why, from the third person, such significant privilege that affords such significant benefits would ever so willingly given up? I'm asking you to supply the logic such that we can convince individual members of our tribal states that they should support the movement towards a borderless/nationless world. So far, the argument has been moral (When privileged, you have a moral obligation to elevate those less privileged), though I was hoping for a stronger argument than that.

Isn't it a sufficient argument that we should strive to create a world where all people have equal opportunity? Yes, there is a natural human instinct to try provide the best situation for oneself. But beyond that, you can either decide everything is arbitrary and nothing matters, or you can make decisions based on a moral framework. Equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth beyond their control, seems like a good basis to me.

That said, I expect there are more robust philosophical arguments. I'm no philosopher, but I'll take a stab at it. Consider the prisoner's dilemma. If everyone acts solely in their own self-interest, it's worse for the whole than if people act cooperatively. Human civilization can be seen the same way. An individual might elevate themselves by acting purely out of self-interest, but on the average we're better off acting cooperatively. So I would suggest that not only is there a moral imperative to strive toward equality, doing so will also improve quality of life overall.

I actually agree that it is wholly sufficient (Based on my life situation) though not necessarily convincing in general. I've been trying to explore the frame used by people voting along protectionist lines, and I don't believe this form would convince them given that the most common narrative against globalization appears to be losing too much to others.

Thanks for this answer. It made me go back and re-read your points again, and reflect on my own viewpoint a bit more deeply. I expect that were I not personally as financially comfortable as I am, it would be less easy to think in the abstract about the merits of equality. I believe in immigration, I donate a decent amount to both domestic and international charities, etc... but it's not like I do it to the extent of materially affecting my own way of life.

And of course, that's natural; people DO value their own well-being and that of their families and friends (and especially children) more than that of strangers. It's a very rare person who's willing to completely sacrifice their own standard of living in the name of global utilitarianism. (Mother Teresa comes to mind, but that's about it...) But it's also pretty rare for a person not to feel any selfless compassion for others either; it's just harder when one feels one's own needs aren't being met.

So maybe that's the real solution to your problem: find a way to address people's needs without resorting to a zero-sum mentality. When people feel they're getting by alright, they will naturally be less begrudging of others. Easier said than done of course, but not impossible. Much more difficult when the focus is on this zero-sum game instead though.

> I expect that were I not personally as financially comfortable as I am, it would be less easy to think in the abstract about the merits of equality.

The crux of the issue. I appreciate you taking the time, and employing the insight, to identify it. In my experience of such discussions, few do.

> Isn't it a sufficient argument that we should strive to create a world where all people have equal opportunity?

It would seem not, or this conversation wouldn't have played out the way it has. I'd certainly be interested to see a defense of this claim that didn't rely on one's interlocutor sharing one's own moral precepts in order to cohere.

Can you also make a defense for racism using the same parameters as you want the aforementioned points reasoned out with? Sometimes, logic needs to be manufactured hand-in-hand with what's morally right. The transition from slavery, to equality wasn't easy, and neither was it done overnight.

I'm not saying a borderless planet would work out; at least not anytime soon. But we should at least be working towards it.

We know that AI could go bizzarlly wrong, but we still work towards achieving better results everyday.

> Sometimes, logic needs to be manufactured hand-in-hand with what's morally right.

The point I'm making is that not everyone agrees with you about what's morally right. In fact, most people in the US, at least, do not. If you want to effectively advance your cause, it is worth finding an argument for your claims which does not rely on moral precepts your interlocutor may not share.

As a side note, likening the existence of national borders to the institution of slavery is probably not such an argument.

If you take it with an open mind, you'll see that my intention is not to liken them, but to demonstrate that not every cause has an inherent, intrinsic argument.

It's not a surprise to me that it's most people in the US that are against the idea of this, because they fear that instead of the datum of other countries moving up, that of USA will go down. This insecurity always annoys me. But take everything I say with a grain of salt because I do not consider myself patriotic whatsoever, and in that sense, my thoughts are in the opposite direction as those of Americans, who, through personal observation are the most patriotic people I've come across.

I don't believe any answer to a "what ought we do..." question can cohere without agreeing to a shared moral framework. The answer to the question will always assume you want to maximize something(s) and choosing among those competing somethings will always be a values judgment.

I really hope you're wrong.

Well what would the logical alternative be? If I argue that someone should support a policy because it serves their self interest, that presumes a moral framework. If I argue they should support it for the greater good, that assumes a moral framework. And so on. I don't think it's a question of looking really hard for the right argument, such an argument is logically precluded.

And it seems to me that most people's framework tends to fall somewhere between the two. People actually aim to maximize some function that depends on both self-interest AND the greater good. The weighting between the two varies between individuals, based on numerous other variables, but very few people are 100% one way or the other (Mother Teresa vs a sociopath). So ISTM now that the goal isn't to convince people to follow a particular moral framework, but rather to attempt to influence the variables that already steer people toward one or another. One of those is exposure. There's that Mark Twain quote, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness..." Another, as discussed above, is financial well-being. The more comfortable one is personally, the easier it is to consider the plight of others. There are certainly others.

I agree with you that while there are some appeals to self-interest that support a goal of equality, fundamentally it is an issue of morality. And I agree with you that you can't logic someone from one moral framework to another. But I would add that almost everyone does have some amount of 'maximize the greater good' built into their moral framework already, so the only logical way to work toward this is to focus on the variables that will add weight to that side of the equation.

I'm not the person you're asking but I hold similar views. An alternative argument could be that should your particular zone have a reversal of fortune - war or climate change, say - It would be good to have the ability to move freely to somewhere with better prospects. The world isn't static.

Effectively a utilitarian argument, using good-will today as a hedge against tomorrow. I believe the argument, though the strength depends on how much risk you expect tomorrow versus how much you give up today.

i don't think we have convincing evidence to maintain consensus that open borders would be better, neither do we have it about closed borders . On purely theoretical grounds, one could offer Occam's razor as a justification for doing away with borders.

Another thing is the free flow of capital. Why can money have open borders but people can't? Anyone who advocates for closed borders should also be in favor of capital flow controls.

(Personally i m not pro-open-borders as of yet)

People may prefer capital over humans purely for selfish reasons. Money coming in your region, assuming you have some degree of control over it, usually help the local economy (growth of jobs, wages, assets) unless its already inflated one like SFBA. Humans on the other hand tend to be a mixed bag. Highly talented migrants (whatever definition of talent suits you) should be a boon to your region but same cannot be said about untrained undeveloped masses.

For a politician, it would make sense to advocate for easy capital inflows, somewhat controlled capital outflows and highly selective immigration process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com