?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Anne Frank's family denied visa to the U.S. - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Feb. 15th, 2007

09:38 am - Anne Frank's family denied visa to the U.S.

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 15th, 2007 06:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My goal has always been the same: the free movement all peoples across national borders, just as we have free movement across state borders now.

I don't see any point to answering practical objections, if, even when I answer them, your mind won't be changed.



(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ernunnos
Date:February 15th, 2007 06:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
My goal has always been the same: the free movement all peoples across national borders, just as we have free movement across state borders now.
Exactly. But that's an ideological goal, not a pragmatic goal. And you refuse to make a pragmatic argument or address pragmatic considerations because you are an ideologue. The practical consequences are less important than whether or not the ideology is upheld. If you have to destroy the U.S. to enact your highest ideal of "freedom of movement", so be it. But that's not convincing to anyone who isn't an ideologue, anyone who enjoys other things in life besides single-minded pursuit of an ideal in isolation.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 15th, 2007 07:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I don't think any arguments I could make will persuade you, pragmatic or otherwise. And I don't think we could agree on the terms of any bets. So I don't see much point in arguing with you on this issue.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ernunnos
Date:February 15th, 2007 07:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)

Well, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? If you don't try, you can't succeed. Even if you don't convince me, you could conceivably use me to hone the arguments you'd need to convince thousands of other pragmatists. But you won't even try. Of course, if you don't try can't fail, either. Except that by refusing to even attempt to make a case, you are failing. You will never appeal to anyone outside of those who already accept your ideological premise that freedom of movement across international borders is the one freedom that matters, the only aspect of quality of life worth mentioning.

And they already agree with you. So what have you gained?

And do you think I'm happy or sad that my political opponents like to waste their time preaching to the choir?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 15th, 2007 08:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
There is some merit to argument that I will hone my arguments by arguing with you.

But assuming my goal is to repeal immigration laws, what is the best way to spend my time? Is the best way to spend time arguing with you on LJ? Who is going to read or care about it, other than a few of our friends?

I'd rather spend the time earning more money to finance iniatives that will reach a wider population. Not to mention spending time with my girlfriend, reading, etc.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:ernunnos
Date:February 15th, 2007 08:39 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, you've got plenty of time to waste online. It's only when the call for pragmatic evidence goes out that you get the vapors and have to take a liedown.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date:February 15th, 2007 08:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Arguments you make could persuade me.

Right now, I'm leaning against yours.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 15th, 2007 08:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Okay, what would you have to see in order to support allowing anyone who was not a convicted criminal or terrorist to live and work and the U.S.?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date:February 15th, 2007 08:48 pm (UTC)
(Link)
If I knew that, I'd already agree with it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 15th, 2007 09:08 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Let me point it another way. Without knowing what you would regard as evidence that would falsify your beliefs, I could spend years finding evidence and making arguments that have no bearing on the foundations for your particular beliefs. Hell, I don't even know what your beliefs about the border are--there's lot's of gradations between supporting fully open borders and our current system. Presumably, you support some restrictions on immigration. But without knowing what restrictions you support, the facts and arguments upon which base your beliefs, and the evidence you believe would falsify your current beliefs (and thus, presumably, change your mind), it would be a waste of time to try to persuade you of anything.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date:February 16th, 2007 12:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
This isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of reasonable hypothesis. You're suggesting, "If we opened our borders, it would make it easier to save Jews in our attic, so we should do that." ernunnos points out that this if we open our borders to everyone, then that means we let the Nazis and the Jew-haters in as well, and there are enough of them out there that they'll just start ignoring the laws or making new laws which let them go around searching all our attics for jews, so we *shouldn't* do that.

He's right, so far as observable evidence shows me. There are more Jew-haters out there than there are Jews. There are more people in Iraq who want to settle old scores and real or imagined slights and who are willing to engage in wanton destruction to achieve their end than there are people who are interested in the rule of law and the dignity of man. History shows me that much of what we enjoy here today (not just here, granted, but here amongst other places) is an end product of thousands of years of peculiar and by-no-means-universal cultural tradition and inheritance that much of the world simply does not share or understand the value of, and your choosing to ignore that and pretend that all people will grok it simply because we let them in does not suggest to me that your hypothesis is one driven by rationality, as opposed to ideology.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 16th, 2007 12:19 am (UTC)
(Link)
So if we opened the borders, what quantifiable changes would you predict? Over what time scale?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date:February 16th, 2007 01:29 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'd expect something like the influx of boat people after Saigon fell, but on a more-or-less global scale.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:February 16th, 2007 01:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
BTW, according to the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, there are 10 countries with scores at or above those of the United States. Would you support free migration between those countries and the U.S.?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date:February 16th, 2007 01:33 am (UTC)
(Link)
No. Why would I assume that economic freedom equates to a sharing of the cultural background that produces vibrant and free societies? Singapore, for example, is a one-party state with little actual political freedom; ferinstance, it has no tradition of free speech and dismisses it as a 'disharmonious' Western value. They're right. It *is* a disharmonious Western value, and that's one reason why the West has been dominant over the East since Alexander.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)