[rayiner]

> If we let someone in from a poor country, we're increasing the income of someone who might be below the 50th percentile into the 99th percentile. It's awfully hard to make a case that we should be enriching the richest people in the world at the cost of the poorest.

It's not hard to make that case at all. Indians and Chinese prospective immigrants are not part of the American body politic. The American government has no duty to benefit them at the expense of Americans, and indeed I'd argue that it's morally wrong for the American government, instituted to protect American interests and American prosperity, to make that trade off regardless of the relative wealth of the people involved.

[yummyfajitas]

Using that same logic, it's not hard to make the case for imperialism. If the sole goal is to benefit Americans at the expense of others, why not steal everyone's natural resources and use them for our own benefit?

[rayiner]

One bit of conventional wisdom that I find interesting is the belief that what was responsible for American prosperity post-WWII was the fact that Europe was devastated and the U.S. was the undisputed industrial superpower. To the extent that theory is true (and I'm not saying it is or not, I don't have enough of a grounding in economics to say)--doesn't that suggest that the rational course of American policy should be to bomb India and China instead of trading with them? People trot out this idea all the time, but nobody really thinks through the implication...

My point isn't that the U.S. should be imperialist. I don't think it should be. There are lots of good, practical reasons to not just go around bombing everyone, namely that it's an expensive game of "king of the hill" in the long run. But in my mind the idea that we have some greater moral obligation to humanity is not one of those reasons. The American government is instituted to secure the prosperity of Americans. That is the beginning and end of the purpose of its existence. The only moral obligations binding upon it are those that reflect the will of its constituency. If the U.S. refrains from imperialism the only reason it should do so is because Americans want to be peaceful, not out of concern for the well being of non-Americans.

It should be noted that, China doesn't subscribe to any such silly notions. If they thought they could get away with bombing us to cripple our infrastructure and that doing so would increase their own prosperity, the Chinese government would do it in a heartbeat.

[eurleif]

So, just to be perfectly clear: you don't believe that people have any moral obligation not to murder each other. But they do have a moral obligation to follow contracts (the government's contract to do what the people want).

[rayiner]

I don't believe in any super natural bases for morality,[1] so I believe that morality arises out of the social contract. Given that, it makes sense to talk about the moral obligations of individuals within a society to each other, but not to talk about one society's obligation to another.

[1] Not just religion, but things like "natural rights" are really supernatural conceptually.

[davidw]

This is a repeat of the other day's conversation (and about 1343243243232 other similar conversations on the internet, which is why we ought to get rid of political articles), but like hell will I "not talk about my obligations" to other human beings that happen to be born with some other passport.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5533155

Edit: looks like someone is sinking these articles off the front page. Good call!

[rayiner]

What do you think is the basis for your obligations to humans that you don't share a government with?

[eurleif]

What's the basis for following the social contract being an obligation?

[rayiner]

Biologically? The various chemical signals (shame, fear, regret, etc) that enforce behavioral expectations within groups of humans.

[Pwnguinz]

Did you mean contRact? Or did you actually mean "contact"? You did type it twice, but I'm just making sure... The word "contact" in this context doesn't make sense to me, so please elaborate, if that's the case.

[eurleif]

Thanks, yeah, I meant contracts. I'm on my phone.

[pandaman]

There are no resources left that you could "steal" for less than you could buy on the open market.

[omonra]

Do you really fail to appreciate the difference between:

A) Not sharing your family/country resources with strangers (who might well be below your level of economic development).

B) Going over to invade another country/family and take away their resources?

[yummyfajitas]

Starting from the premise that "it's morally wrong for the American government, instituted to protect American interests and American prosperity, to make that trade off", I don't see any reason to oppose imperialism.

I don't agree with the premise, but that's a separate point.

[omonra]

Right - but I am not asking whether you personally find imperialism as logical conclusion.

I am asking if you understand the difference between point A and B?

[bicknellr]

[insert communism comparison rebuttal here]

[Pwnguinz]

> instituted to protect American interests and American prosperity

That makes intuitive sense. But in practice I'd argue it's much more nuanced than that. What we all legally and sovereignly call "The United States of America" are many distinct (and I don't just mean by State borders) populations with vastly different needs and are affected differently by global undertakings.

As a thought experiments, let's say bringing immigrants from Country Z lowers the wages of workers in Trade X in Alaska-America by 50%. However, this decreases the amount of production for Product H in Country Z by 25% due to migrating workers. This increases the wages of workers in Trade B in Florida-America by 200% due to the shortage of Product H. The net-gain here is Zero for The United States of America (assuming workers in Trade B and X are same in numbers, thereby cancelling each other's net loss/gains out).

Ought not the American government allow the immigrants on the basis that, overall, it is increasing the wealth of the world economy; the world of which the United States of America is very much a part of?

I suppose the argument can be made that fundamentally the government only cares about its own Prosperity even in this case, and that a "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario outlined above merely falls into that category.

[rayiner]

I'm not saying immigration can't be the right policy if it benefits Americans. I'm saying the extent to which it benefits non-Americans isn't part of the calculus.