Migration and Society

[RWStanding]

Migration: As with most ethical questions people heatedly debate this from quite opposing sides that cannot be reconciled. Ethics is decided by the ethical class of society in which we live - or which we espouse. There is the national society and the global society.
For the national society, Britain and most other places, internal migration is controlled by local and national planning, and also by wealth, which last is far from egalitarian. A resulting ethical conflict, unless planning itself is based purely on wealth. What that means for the social and natural environment may be debated.
Migration as generally understood is a global matter. Random migration across the globe according to personal desire, denotes a global society in virtual chaos, or at least anarchistic. Properly, anarchism is egalitarian and everyone has their own property, which precludes random migration.
Fortunately, for an altruist, we do not have a global tyranny. If it were so, then people would not migrate. They would be allowed or directed to where policy determines, and not for personal benefit.
If we were, amazingly, to find ourselves in a altruistic global society. It would quite essentially be based on mutual and overall benefit long term, which means quite purposeful control. There could be no random migration by right. Pragmatically, this would mean United Nations regulation. The almost intractable problem for altruism, is in achieving social control or responsibility, while avoiding plain authoritarianism. There must be a fair degree of consensus. Effectively, every country would be obliged to maintain a self-sufficient population, and not be open to immigration if the population is already in excess. Industry and commerce would be restricted to catering for the population that exists and which it serves.
Since in fact our world is in social chaos, we have the problem of forced refugees. The ‘rules’ of social chaos are not nice. The rules of environmental chaos are not nice. That is the current situation globally, and we are facing global ruin.

[jayjacobus]

There certainly are risks that social changes present to society and to individual people. But there are also great risks presented by authorities seeking to control the risks presented by society. Is the answer dictatorships?

Should the firm control the wants of its customers, employees, contractors and competitors. We could have a static society if we wanted that. But that would be hard to do and not beneficial at all.

The North Korean people are not a risk. Kim Jung Un is a great, great risk. Let's not seek to control North Koreans. Let's control or get rid off Kim Jung Un. Is that being done? If not, why not? Is the risk of nuclear attack on Portland, Seattle or Chicago an acceptable risk?

The intent of authorities in control is unknown but there are warning signs. Let's Not negotiate with people of bad intents. Let's replace them with people of good intents. Is our government stupid?

[Impenitent]

the rules of chaos...

maximum government control is maximum freedom...

and he loved big brother

-Imp

[henry quirk]

...it's suicidal for a quasi-welfare state to allow folks across its borders who can't, from the start, fend for themselves.

[FlashDangerpants]

Suicidal?

[henry quirk]

an ever-growing population of dependents with no attendant increase in the independent population (the folks who foot the bills)

bad enough with a home-grown dependent population: absolutely devastating with open or porous borders

again: I'm talkin' about the (quasi) welfare nation, the kind danglin' public assistance like carrot

[FlashDangerpants]

What exactly are the assumptions you are making about these persons remaining dependent on state aid?

[henry quirk]