Migration and Society
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2019 7:06 am
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.
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.
