Thoughts on USA this year?

[brandonl]

well that would explain the 56% immigration reduction over @ your side of the fence

US border: Mexico announces 56% migrant drop after crackdown

The foreign minister says the number of arrivals on the US border has fallen since May.

www.bbc.com

The migrants are human being's trying to acquire a better life for themselves and their families. It's terrible that America turns it's back on people in need. It's a sad world we live in when human beings don't want to come to the aid of other human beings.

 

[dmgtz96]

The migrants are human being's trying to acquire a better life for themselves and their families. It's terrible that America turns it's back on people in need. It's a sad world we live in when human beings don't want to come to the aid of other human beings.

The counter-arguments to this are:

Why is that the US' problem?
Why do these immigrants have to enter the US? Why not just stay in Mexico, which would welcome them with open arms?
If the US is bound to help Central Americans, why not immigrants from other countries as well?

edited

 

[Jetflag]

It's terrible that America turns it's back on people in need. It's a sad world we live in when human beings don't want to come to the aid of other human beings.

nonsense, if I may say or observe so, you're reacting from (over) empathy, which is laudable in some sense, but not from a factual basis.

First, You're perfectly free to immigrate to the States and build a better life for yourself and your family if you so desire. Hell, I stayed with one such last year on my visit there. Who, like the ones before them simply needed to get the paperwork and passports to do so.

(And please, don't make me pedantically explain the obvious set of practical reasons for why borders and identification are neccesairy and exist thoughout the entire world.)

Second, The United States has more immigrants than any other country in the world. Today, more than 40 million people living in the U.S. were born in another country, accounting for about one-fifth of the world’s migrants. Its also the worlds largest contributor to foreign aid, a whopping 34.62 billion, $95.52 per capita. The claim of this cold, heartless country is laughably false.

And thats not even accounting things like church volunteers. You as a US citizen can (and they do) visit any of those countries and help. You don't however get to demand that of others, which is nothing else but fair.

Third, how do you think developing countries are ever going to increase their development or wealth if their best and brightest or just plain workforce decide to leave the place that nurtured them? how fair is that towards the population that can't leave because of things like age?

The majority of immigrants are from mexico, el salvador, honduras and quatemala. non of these countries are at war or have civil war/unrest. and apart from your once in a while natural disaster (for which they recieve human aid, again majority contributer the US) they don't face humanitarian crisis like the ones we see in say: Syria.

 

[brandonl]

Borders and identification exist to control people and the movement of them around the world. In a better world there would be no borders or identification like passports, visa's, green cards etc... in order to travel or move around the world. It's a restriction that exists in a flawed world.

China is the largest contributor to foreign aid, united states is 2nd.
5 COUNTRIES THAT PROVIDE THE LARGEST FOREIGN AID

The united states does do alot but could do alot more and under Trump, America's performance is abysmal.

Alot of the reasons countries in central/south America are suffering is because of America's interference and manipulation of foreign governments which hurt people. It's also because of corruption and lack of ethics and concern for it's own people with resources and wealth not being distributed to the people. The issue is a lot more complex than that, but it's a general synopsis of the issues.

All of those nations has in the past or are currently facing domestic conflicts through crime for example which causes people to flee those nations. The climate crisis is actually the number one reason why people in central/south America are fleeing their home countries for a better opportunity where the crisis isn't as exacerbated.

There reason for fleeing those nations i would say is justified. America could do alot more to help those nations and in return people would not become immigrants or refugees and flee to America.

 

[Archon]

How would you govern a population of 8+ billion without any borders? Because if there are no borders for moving, are there borders at all? If there are no borders at all, are there countries then?

Let me ask you real quick about the climate crisis and its link to emigration from C/S America, where have you found that and can you elaborate a bit on that?

 

[dmgtz96]

Alot of the reasons countries in central/south America are suffering is because of America's interference and manipulation of foreign governments which hurt people. It's also because of corruption and lack of ethics and concern for it's own people with resources and wealth not being distributed to the people. The issue is a lot more complex than that, but it's a general synopsis of the issues.

I don't disagree that the US has done awful things in the past to Central/South American countries, but when will it have to stop paying for its mistakes?
By now, I would argue that the corruption and lack of ethics you see in certain Central/South American countries is not the US' fault.

 

[Jetflag]

Borders and identification exist to control people and the movement of them around the world. In a better world there would be no borders or identification like passports, visa's, green cards etc... in order to travel or move around the world. It's a restriction that exists in a flawed world.

Border and identification exist protect the people/demos, and have done so since the beginning of anthropomorphic tribal settlements and crude kingdoms. They, like hierachies in general, are a fundamental part of the human condition and not something you're just going to top down "wish away" in preferance over some platonic form. Which is why experiments with no borders keep failing.. not because its not a nice idea to just be 100% free to go about where you like, But because it just doesn't work in practice on the human species.

And its not just protection of the local demos, its protection FROM the local demos. Being undocumented presents a terrible weakness that opens the door to horrible levels of abuse, and you can think of things like absurd labour with virtually 0 wages, donor harvesting, (child) prositution, use your imagination. This isn't something you want to have morally resting on your shoulders as a country by just Yolo opening the borders.

A person decerns the rights given to him by his sovereign/country via registration, since otherwise its impossible to know who a person is, what is age or history is etc.



This world, and its dominant species ís flawed, in its essence. Thats just a matter of fact. And in a flawed world one unfortuntatly often has to settle for what works (best) instead of what you would like it to be.


also : see Gagi's point. whats your suggestion in terms of say: criminality in a one world utopia
a " world police? "
sorry but after watching that movie I have my sincere doubts about wanting that lol

China is the largest contributor to foreign aid, united states is 2nd.

5 COUNTRIES THAT PROVIDE THE LARGEST FOREIGN AID

Yet they've only been so recently, (I think 2005 with ups and downs?) The US has a far longer history of proving foreign aid . But still, I'll happily admit to stand corrected on that issue for this year, its still the silver medal in terms of the foreign aid olympics and hardly the evil queen in the picture you where painting, also The Us development aid per capita is higher.

The united states does do alot but could do alot more and under Trump, America's performance is abysmal.

yes, but its no good trying to be no1 in foreign aid if you don't have your own house financially in order. There's a very good reason why China's foreign aid was non existent post-Mao. Take it from an ex-lifeguard, There's only so many people that can fit on your board or buoy before it sinks and you're back @ square one, only this time you're part of the people drowning.

Alot of the reasons countries in central/south America are suffering is because of America's interference and manipulation of foreign governments which hurt people. It's also because of corruption and lack of ethics and concern for it's own people with resources and wealth not being distributed to the people. The issue is a lot more complex than that, but it's a general synopsis of the issues.

I refer to dmgtz96 's comment on this

All of those nations has in the past or are currently facing domestic conflicts through crime for example which causes people to flee those nations. The climate crisis is actually the number one reason why people in central/south America are fleeing their home countries for a better opportunity where the crisis isn't as exacerbated.

There reason for fleeing those nations i would say is justified. America could do alot more to help those nations and in return people would not become immigrants or refugees and flee to America.

well sure, there's always "more" you can do. But the american approach to this problem is about as sensible as it can be. Namely:
- provide foreign aid without sinking your own ship and if there's theat of that, fix it before rather then after spending.
- give US citizens the freedom to travel there and spend all the money they want, without making that a demand/burden for those that can't or prefer not to for whatever reason.
- allow people to come to the US if they wish to build a better lif there, instead of staying and building the country that birth them.
the only requirement is that they do so according to the legal framework.

 

[brandonl]

How would you govern a population of 8+ billion without any borders? Because if there are no borders for moving, are there borders at all? If there are no borders at all, are there countries then?

Let me ask you real quick about the climate crisis and its link to emigration from C/S America, where have you found that and can you elaborate a bit on that?
--------------------------------------------

I don't see why we need a world which is divided between over 200 nations with over 200 individual governments operating independently of each other. It's an extremely stupid, inefficient system.

It makes more sense for the human race to have one world government controlled by the people of the world. People can live and work wherever they want in the world. The resources on this planet are the collective property of the human race, not governments.

 

[brandonl]

I don't disagree that the US has done awful things in the past to Central/South American countries, but when will it have to stop paying for its mistakes?
By now, I would argue that the corruption and lack of ethics you see in certain Central/South American countries is not the US' fault.
-----------------------------------------------------


The US government helps rig elections and gets people into power favorable to them, so of course there is corruption in government when people don't have control over who is in power and they can't influence how their government operates.

 

[brandonl]

Border and identification exist protect the people/demos, and have done so since the beginning of anthropomorphic tribal settlements and crude kingdoms. They, like hierachies in general, are a fundamental part of the human condition and not something you're just going to top down "wish away" in preferance over some platonic form. Which is why experiments with no borders keep failing.. not because its not a nice idea to just be 100% free to go about where you like, But because it just doesn't work in practice on the human species.

And its not just protection of the local demos, its protection FROM the local demos. Being undocumented presents a terrible weakness that opens the door to horrible levels of abuse, and you can think of things like absurd labour with virtually 0 wages, donor harvesting, (child) prositution, use your imagination. This isn't something you want to have morally resting on your shoulders as a country by just Yolo opening the borders.

A person decerns the rights given to him by his sovereign/country via registration, since otherwise its impossible to know who a person is, what is age or history is etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Your asking me how do we change the way our global society functions based on who humanity currently is. To that i say we need to socially reengineer the human race. From the ground up change who we are as a species. How we live, how we think, how we act towards eachother etc.....everything. In order to be a better race and to actually survive and not wipe ourselves out, humanity has to change what it means to be human and we need to rethink how we want to live or we become extinct.

 

[Archon]

I don't see why we need a world which is divided between over 200 nations with over 200 individual governments operating independently of each other. It's an extremely stupid, inefficient system.

It makes more sense for the human race to have one world government controlled by the people of the world. People can live and work wherever they want in the world. The resources on this planet are the collective property of the human race, not governments.

Ok, but I haven't seen the "how" part of the question, just your theories as to why it should be like that. Even if some nations aren't, cultures are vastly different, so getting a consensus would be really difficult.

 

[brandonl]

Ok, but I haven't seen the "how" part of the question, just your theories as to why it should be like that. Even if some nations aren't, cultures are vastly different, so getting a consensus would be really difficult.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think their needs to be some sort of global event that would unite the human race more together.

 

[Admin]

I think their needs to be some sort of global event that would unite the human race more together.

Alien invasion!!!

 

[dmgtz96]

Alien invasion!!!

For real. The only way I see that type of "unification" happening is after an apocalyptic event where the human race is nearly wiped out. Even then, the most likely scenario is that some of the remaining humans will try to dominate the other humans.

 

[Jetflag]

Your asking me how do we change the way our global society functions based on who humanity currently is. To that i say we need to socially reengineer the human race. From the ground up change who we are as a species. How we live, how we think, how we act towards eachother etc.....everything. In order to be a better race and to actually survive and not wipe ourselves out, humanity has to change what it means to be human and we need to rethink how we want to live or we become extinct.

except there's one problem.

Social engineering demonstrably doesn't work.

The USSR tried it, Maoíst china tried it, Scandinavian countries recently tried it with gender inequality and things like the Wage earnings gap.

Result: Differences between classes only increased in the former 2 (so an untouchable ruling class vs the plebs became an even more untouchable ruling class vs even poorer plebs) and in case of scandinavia the differences in gender expression after 2 decades of policy only increased (so more men in STEM then previously, and more stay at home women/nurses)

bottom line: go against nature, nature comes back with a vengeance.

If you wish to alter the global state of Human society that radically, you're left with one option. Change nature. iow. a fully genetically modified "human" race that can function the way say the Borg in Star Trek do.

if that doesn't sound appealing to you, you're out of options, and the homo sapien sub species wil continue the way it does. and maybe, very maybe will see a slight evolutionairy change based on environmental pressures in say. A couple of centuries.

 

[Jetflag]

People can live and work wherever they want in the world. The resources on this planet are the collective property of the human race, not governments.

would they though? even in the current model you still don't have a choice where you work, wherever there is work, you can apply and you'll mostl likely be forced in some sense to move there for practical reasons.

and what is stopping this global government from not capitlizing those resources and distributing them as they see fit? (which, lets be honest, in all likeliness would means something like 80% for me 20% for you)

also. If you thought it was hard getting a regular goverment to take notice of the little man and his concerns about say, work and places to live. How hard do you think it would be for an even more detached "world" government?

The ideal world you're describing sounds a bit like the one in Elysium or The Expanse to me, basically a distopia where there's 1 ruling class over 1 world, with no way to oppose them since they also control the "world" militairy and police. and there's nowhere to run to if you end up with the wrong dictator.

forgive me, but it sounds to me like you didn't think this through. at all.

 

[brandonl]

The world i am trying to describe is exactly what you see in Star Trek. A utopia. Certainly one that shares pieces of democracy, socialism and communism. I refuse to believe that humanity can't make it work.

People should not be forced to have a job in order to make money to survive and to have the basic necessities of life. The basic necessities of life should be globally recognized as a basic human right and should be guaranteed to all people. A one world government needs to have a global constitution controlled by people. The government should not have power to impose policy, that's up to people.

Through technology we can eliminate scarcity and provide what is needed for all people to live good lives. Getting rid of the monetary system will liberate people from slavery and oppression and eliminate the greed and corruption that people fall into with a money based system.

As human beings we need to have hope that we can make a better system for all people. If we don't have hope for a better tomorrow, then we have nothing to live for.

 

[Jetflag]

The world i am trying to describe is exactly what you see in Star Trek. A utopia. Certainly one that shares pieces of democracy, socialism and communism. I refuse to believe that humanity can't make it work.

People should not be forced to have a job in order to make money to survive and to have the basic necessities of life. The basic necessities of life should be globally recognized as a basic human right and should be guaranteed to all people. A one world government needs to have a global constitution controlled by people. The government should not have power to impose policy, that's up to people.

Through technology we can eliminate scarcity and provide what is needed for all people to live good lives. Getting rid of the monetary system will liberate people from slavery and oppression and eliminate the greed and corruption that people fall into with a money based system.

As human beings we need to have hope that we can make a better system for all people. If we don't have hope for a better tomorrow, then we have nothing to live for.

Well first of I’m glad to find another trekkie on the forum.

However:

The “utopia” that is the UFP in Star trek isn’t a single world utopia is it? Its a coalition between multiple planets (countries if you will) each with their unique customs, species, barriers to entry etc. there’s planets joining and cecceeding all the time, its basically Gene Roddenberry’s analogy of the European union in space. So instead of having 200 countries you have 200 planets with borders and local governments, customs to adher to. etc. Not to mention the border with other empires/entities. It didn't get rid of the concept of borders, it just scaled the whole thing up.

Its also not socialist. Its post-scarcity (classical) liberal.

- Private property is everywhere (Picard ows a vineyard, sisko’s family owns a restaurant, Kirk owns a ranch etc.)
- Currency isn’t gone, money simply has been replaced by Competence as currency. Not everyone and actually very few get to be in for instance Starfleet or become captain or qualify for say, Trill joining. and there’s plenty who fall between the cracks like the Maquis, tom paris and Picards second exec etc.
and that’s even ignoring all the direct trade the UFP citizens are engaged in, think of all the gold pressed latinum traders/arms dealers we see throughout say DS9 during the dominion war. Money as a concept is basically an equalizer/abstraction for trade. Which startrek didn’t get rid of, and neither did it ignore or solve the human tendency to engage in it.
- Its also definitely not communist which is the end goal of socialism. Gene wasn’t a big fan of socialism/communism which in Star Trek is, as before mentioned, represented by their most dangerous enemy. The Borg. A single hivemind that all think alike, and any deviation is either forcefully assimilated or purged with resistance being futile. There's no government, there are no borders, everybody is an equal integral part and there's no discord. The perfect communist utopia.
on a political side note: Facism is represented by the Cardassian Union/the Romulan Star empire and the Dominion is basically the shadow variant of the federation, minus the democracy. Klingons are a bit hard to pin down and vary per series from either friend or enemy or neutral. I sometimes classify them as the warrior cast Australia of star trek.
on another side note: The UPF suffers from the same (growing) detachment that the EU is currenty exhibiting. Namely that from the ivory tower that is Earth or Strassbourgh, You lose touch with the little man, which in the case of startrek results in the Maquis conflict en eventually, massacre, for "the greater good" of the UPF and its treaties.

Now you are of course free to believe that humanity can somehow make “it” work. But Gene Roddenberry, much as I love the man, wasn’t a realist, he was a dreamer and as far as can be decerned a "bleading" heart-core liberal. Who’s end vision for humanity was a plantonic form that, beautifull as it might be, had very little ground in science, sociology or reality for that matter. A contemporary of his, Robert A. Heinlein was far more realistic in his similar view of a competence based liberal future society. (both he and Roddenberry where actually inspired by Ayn Rand rather then Marx or Hegel, as a little interresting side note)

Star trek aside for a moment, (sorry for the rant above btw i'm a huge startrek nerd lol) you mentioned "The government should not have power to impose policy, that's up to people"

This is an oxymoron if every I saw one. The whole reason you have a democratic “peoples” government is because as a cooperating ape species with various unique individuals you’re inevitably going to crystalize into some form or institute that imposes policy uppon the group after it forms (anything from might-makes- right tribalism to democracies) , like the protection of its voter Demos that we’ve mentioned earlier. The clue is basically in the name: “govern” ment. The pople vote in the government, the government imposes policy.


"If we don't have hope for a better tomorrow, then we have nothing to live for. "

Well, the overwhealming majority of religious people on the planet that don't agree with you on that aside m8, as an Ietsist I don’t see how an inviduals hope for a better tomorrow is particulary relevant to the discussion of the (forced) societal outcome of the entire world population, it mostly a personal thing.


But I Agree, I to am in favor of a better tomorrow, who isn't? the difference between you and I is that I will settle for an "optimal" better tomorrow, whereas (from what i've gathered so far) you'll only settle for a "utopia" (which again, either which you're definitly not going to get via social engineering, sorry.)

it might very well be that liberal democracies with a capitalist free market is the best system we’re going to get albeit imperfect/un-utopian. I certainly don’t see a better alternative, It pulled more people out of poverty and in wealth then ANY other system. which is why I’m a proponent of spreading that system to as many people as possible, so as to improve their lives and why, for that reason i don't think of the USA as an inherent "evil" entity.

 

[dmgtz96]

it might very well be that liberal democracies with a capitalist free market is the best system we’re going to get albeit imperfect/un-utopian. I certainly don’t see a better alternative, It pulled more people out of poverty and in wealth then ANY other system. which is why I’m a proponent of spreading that system to as many people as possible, so as to improve their lives and why, for that reason i don't think of the USA as an inherent "evil" entity.

We're already seeing the failures of capitalism. There is no way you can keep it unchecked - you need government involvement and regulation to ensure the fundamental needs of the people are met, and that they are treated fairly by their employers. Otherwise you're going to get a bunch of corporations whose employees are on public welfare.

 

[Jetflag]

We're already seeing the failures of capitalism. There is no way you can keep it unchecked - you need government involvement and regulation to ensure the fundamental needs of the people are met, and that they are treated fairly by their employers. Otherwise you're going to get a bunch of corporations whose employees are on public welfare.

yes I agree. which is why i'm not a libetarian but a classical liberal, and as such not opposed to the concept of the Nationstate and/or governments. I believe we're actually never going to get a perfect 1 size fits all system and instead you need multible independend ones constatly pushing and pulling on one another to reach a sort of...optimal impasse. if that makes sense.

Capitalism is misstakenly seen by most as a top down implied system. Its not. is a bottom up consequence of Liberalism a.k.a the recognition of sovereignty of the individual, its right to own the fruits of its labour and its freedom to engange in mutual trade.
much like democracy, who also puts the emphasis on the soverneignty of the individual and its freedom to engage with the democratic process via its voice/vote. because regardless of the makeup of the group. the lowest intersection / common demonitator will always be the individual.

and in that sense they both perfectly align with one of my favorite churchill quotes.

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Same goes for capitalism and its imperfecies in a sense. There simply isnt any demonstrably better working system available, untill someone invents it at which point i would like to be the first to know.