A traditional American conservative conception of democracy is that "government" can't be trusted and therefore, people have a need to educate themselves on policy and a need to become politically involved. This is in stark contrast to the liberal conception of democracy, which is that government can be trusted (when it's liberal) and that everyone who is a liberal is by nature enlightened and therefore qualified to weigh in on every single policy issue. The single largest differences here might be an issue of humility. The American conservative doesn't necessarily believe that he knows best on everything, which is fortunate since no one does, he just believes that he has to make an attempt. Whether any of that is true surely varies with each situation but so far at least, America's domestic conservative track record has largely succeeded in getting good results for Americans which I think makes criticism of American conservatism within America an uphill battle. One method that leftists have for getting around this obstacle is they choose not to talk about the interests of Americans to begin with, they talk about the interests of foreigners. This is probably a reason why the open borders arguments have gained so much traction among the left, it is easier to win the argument if you aren't talking about American interests in the first place. As a result, those arguments get recognized as winners and become louder and louder within the liberal echo chambers until it becomes normal for them to value the foreigner above the native. I also don't believe that "technocracy" is the answer here because that is actually just the same hubris, only now we are trying harder. Experts are not qualified to wield absolute power in their fields because there are resource sharing and allocation issues, or one field might start to effect another field. Since there doesn't exist the person who is an expert in every field at once, putting the experts in charge without any sort of oversight might only lead to new problems. Ultimately they would need to be overseen by someone and then we would be back where we were before (should that oversight be elected and so-on) and of course, most elected officials already employ experts from relevant fields as highly influential advisors. Those people often write the bills that the elected officials represent. People who get indignant about technocracy only extend their willingness to see up to a certain point, then they extend their willingness to control beyond what they are willing to see. If monarchies and other early forms of government claimed to be justly handling everything by divine mandate, modern liberal governments accomplishes something similar by over-complicating everything until people become exhausted and stop paying attention. The biggest difference between the two, from a material perspective, is that that modern form of justification for government requires having a tangible and material person to blame when something goes wrong, earlier forms of government did not necessarily require this according to their own rationales. The problem could be attributed to God, Gods or non-human entities. This is surely a more fair method when dealing with problems that might not be attributable towards the actions of any people. I think a person who accepts and tries to cope with their own limitations (and their societies' limitations) is more respectable than a person who pretends that those limitations don't exist because the latter ultimately leads to scapegoating.
A nice theory, but I suspect that it's more subtle than that. For example, if minorities were overwhelmingly conservative in their viewpoints, I think the left would be all in favor of closed borders. I think the left is in favor of open borders not because of any inherent love of open borders but because the left is in favor of anything that moves them closer to victory. If they can't win among white males (and they can't), then they'll go after the brown people's vote, and the more brown people they can bring into the country, the more votes they'll get. Up until 9/11, Muslims in the US voted Republican. And you never heard from Democrats that we needed to up the number of Muslims in the US, until after 9/11.
As a leftist I think can answer why we, at least on the far left, want open borders. Nothing gives anyone the right to say where anyone can live as we are all humans born on the same planet.
open borders is advocated by libertarians who, again, are members of the political right: https://www.google.com/search?q=ope...ome..69i57.12608j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Still another right wing lie exposed for the fraud that it is.
This is just a self serving definition of conservative. The whole basis of democracy is that government has to be held accountable so by its very nature it cannot be "trusted". This in the big wide world outside the rightwing bubbles in the USA is defined as "liberal democracy". Pathetic straw man argument. Everyone is entitled to weigh in on every single policy issue. That's liberal democracy. That's hilarious: "I am so humble I am probably the humblest man in the whole world. In fact I am bigly humble: the humbliest humble person in humble land". The history of the USA since Japan and Germany declared war on the USA and ended the shameful isolationism of the USA in the face of global fascism, has been overwhelmingly liberal and has led to a liberal pax Americana across the free world, which is also overwhelmingly liberal. The post war boom has largely been based on globalism, Keynesian economics (even under Reagan despite what he said he spent, spent and spent again), widening democracy and opposing racism etc.. Indeed so many conservatives know this. They blame all the world's ills on the post war liberal consensus and now call for isolationism, tariffs etc.. Where does this rubbish start? Even if you take it at face value it doesn't make sense except as a dog whistle to xenophobes. Have a go at foreigners, that's always a good one. It's a lie of course because "leftists" rarely talk about foreigners. To win elections you need to talk about the interests of people in the USA not people in the Dominican Republic. And why would a leftists value a foreigner above a native? You did not say. You just asserted it. Just drivel isn't it? Just more assertion. No examples as to what this drivel might mean. I get it that you don't like experts. You go to the scale old salesman then and I'll go to the doctor. In liberal democracies experts are accountable to the people. In your world we can all wallow about in the mud. Another pathetic straw man. Who are these people getting indignant about technocracy? I didn't notice this political movement. Is this just made up rubbish? Is it too complicated to understand how an economic system with literally trillions of transactions a day works? Does it hurt the brain? Maybe we could go back to ploughing our land with an ox and cart then and it would all be much simpler? Wow what is this? You actually arguing for monarchy? That's what this says. Personally, I as a liberal will stick with liberal democracy which holds someone to blame (or account) when things go wrong. Through elections. Looks like your argument on open borders was utterly fatuous and by the end you gave it up. The people who believed in open borders were American idealists who saw the USA as a "new world". Thomas Paine regarded the USA as "the cause of all mankind". Enlightened thinkers such as the Founding Fathers regarded "all men being created equal", even foreigners. That was a long time ago though. The might of the USA is built on immigration and the population growth that still continues underlines economic growth. Immigrants will always do the lowly paid jobs and that boosts the economy. There is no leftist panacea that stands for open borders. That is just a right wing lie. "Liberals" believe in controlled immigration. Your essay needs rigour. That means you need to understand the arguments of those you do not agree with before you write arrogant high handed drivel about such arguments. If you swallow propaganda you will stumble. "Open borders" is a term of abuse for someone else's point of view. Except for a few libertarians and anarchists, it is not a real point of view. As the young people say nowadays, the OP is an "epic fail". Try again.
That is just a simplistic view without understanding the nature of human beings. Human beings are not inherently "good." That is something you have to first understand. Human beings are greedy and territorial by nature - ALL of them. Open borders is a silly pipe dream that would never ever work.
So, some differentiation may be necessary to understand why some parts of the liberal community want open boarders, and the real reasons. First, liberals outside of actual power view it as a fluffy puppy argument. They perceive the advantages of their lifestyles, and simply assume that everyone should have it as good as they do, so, why not? You could insert many examples here, Marie Antoinette, Leo DeCaprio, Ellen, etc. It's a personally held sophistry that there is infinite availability. (of course, this view is mutually exclusive of their other ideas, ie climate change that are Malthusian based which would claim exactly the opposite). The liberal mind, though, doesn't see these incongruities, they are just different breeds of fluffy puppies all of which can be adored equally. And then, there's the real reason. Collectivist liberals have been stymied by their inability to actually produce the fluffy puppy world they promise, and instead have only ever been able to produce the death grip of authoritarianism and the limitless negative spiral of demand economics. Open boarders then creates both opportunity and more, effective expansion of the potential pool of subjects to support the plantation they so desperately wish to recreate. Open boarders lead inexorably to expanded political influence, globalism, etc. So marketing fluffy puppies is necessary to anesthetize the public they wish to ultimately exploit and subjugate. It's very simplistic. It's exemplified by the majority of the active "workers" efforts, environmental groups, etc. The pejorative view is that liberalism equates the elites as the stewards of the plantation over which they effectively manage the herds of productive drones who produce the quality of their life needs and fulfillment of their fluffy puppy view of the world. When liberals promise the cake, they never actually articulate the inherent shackles that come with them.
A person can be against a stupid border wall because it's a waste of money that can be easily worked around and will be an environmental nightmare and still not be for open borders. Why are the conservatives who post here not able to see past black and white on every issue?
It's confusing isn't it Chris? An ideology that most of its adherents also stand firmly on Humans being simply an example of pond scum, evolving to lizard, evolving to monkey, evolving to well, us, Animal to Human... But somehow any of our base animal instincts are dismissed, or that our territorial/self-preservation instincts have evaporated...
Which is nice ... if you're six years old, and watching a Disney movie. In the grown up world, we factor in reality. Limited resources, space, harmony, social cohesion, safety, progress, health, education, welfare, roads, housing, etc etc.
This is a so much tedious drivel. And lies. "Collectivist liberals" is tedious drivel. Liberals believe in the individual, gathered together into a society where there is a social contract between the individual and society. This is the cornerstone of the United States, the Enlightenment and modern liberal democracy. No matter how much you keep slandering liberalism by describing it as authoritarian communism, there is no liberal that believes society should be organised into "collectives". Borders has no "a". Nonetheless you seem to be describing free trade in half your post. Please be clear what you mean by open borders. This usually means free movement of people, not free movement of goods and services. An argument about free trade differs from one about open borders as follows: 1. Open borders is only supported by some extreme libertarians (usually associated with conservatives) and anarchists (usually associated with the Left). It is a conservative lie and tired straw man to suggest that "liberals" agree with uncontrolled immigration. Name one Democratic senator who has proposed unrestricted immigration if you can. 2. Free trade is supported by almost any intelligent person who has some knowledge and education as to business, economics or history. It is supported by most of the Republican Party. It is actually opposed by a lot of troglodyte Democrats who want to protect American jobs by protecting them from global competition. So rigour, clarity and less of the grandiose waffle that says nothing and you can rise above one more 'epic fail" in your next essay.
Lies are the currency of the Right nowadays. With the exception of high brow conservatives (like the neocons for example) most conservatives are so unable to grasp economics or even the simplest political argument. But they can do culture wars which means that they construct an absurd straw man which resembles nothing but their won imaginations and then they spend years in their dorm rooms literally flogging the straw man to smithereens. Only a very small number of extremists and cranks support open borders. Most sensible people with a modicum of intelligence and education support free trade which has driven the prosperity of nations like the USA and the development of technology, living standards and peace across the world.
This is what I truly love about folks on the left. Obviously, this is either wishful thinking, or purposeful dissembling on Heroclitus' part. I believe that the above poster is an enamoured Bernie supporter, who clearly is a collectivist. And he is associated as a liberal. So, clearly, the "rights of the individual and contract" portion of the discussion above were utter BS or whitewashing designed to otherwise deflect actual reality that frankly is pervasive within the leftist movements in this country today. Are you kidding? Clinton ran on open borders. Obama ran the nation on the precept of open borders. Bernie ran on open borders. Perhaps you don't know the difference between de facto and de jure. And while our flim flam democrats would mouth the words legal immigration, their actions clearly undermined the integrity of them. DACA is a perfect example of this. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/the-left-goes-all-in-on-open-borders/ Perhaps you were unaware? Laughable.
This is a majestic statement. It encapsulates the dishonesty and malevolence of the Right in the US today. It says - "no matter how much you describe your views and develop your arguments as supporting capitalism and liberty, I believe that your views are those of an authoritarian communist. I cite no evidence for this and develop no argument. I just assert it. And that's that." This of course is thuggery.. It is abusive. It is oppressive. And it is infantile. But this is the currency of American conservatives. They engage in doublespeak and falsification that defies satire. Ingsoc looks like a bastion of tolerance and reasoning when compared to this zombie way of thinking. They can accuse anyone of anything "because they say so". If it triumphs it is the end of the United States as a free country. No country can flourish if it is dominated by such evil. Absence of liberty tells in the end. It may even be the cancer that ends the Free World and hands power to China, if China's own authoritarianism does not prove to be that country's undoing too. It needs to be faced down by every liberty loving human on the planet. A new fascism that deserves its own label. The crudity and openness of the deceit is stunning.
If the USA had open borders its population would be bigger than China's. That's de facto. Your straw man is a lie. Pure and simple.
Nah, it's just cutting through your otherwise thinly covered collectivism. Your assertion is that your efforts are only to "supplement" our democracy and capitalism, when truly, you only with to subvert them. That is real dishonesty. So, instead of actually producing an argument, the above runs behind the shield of victimization. Poor Heroclitus" as they are now victimized because they were unable to advance a credible argument. Oh well. The icing is simply the phrasing of the rhetoric. "no country can flourish".. "dominated by evil"... Laughable. It is simply the reflection the poster sees every day in the mirror. Trying to transfer that angst towards others? dutiful for sure. But not going to happen. So, you wave the Chinese boogy man at us. Hopeful that your inherently racist allies will come to your aid.
Wow, talk about facts, not in evidence..... Which still doesn't address the validity of the observation that it is our democratic faithful who are actively working towards open borders. Your unwillingness to engage on that is telling.
The technique is as follows: if you face an argument that you don't know how to counter, make another one up and ascribe that to your opponent. The fact that this is a lie can be dealt with by calling the counter party a liar. Add in a little fratboy taunting for good measure. This way you never really have to think, analyze, research, challenge yourself or develop the slightest curiosity in anything. You can just recycle a few phrases as you train yourself for the next two minute hate session with your witty "Lock Her Up", "Drain That Swamp" or "Build That Wall". Easy really. Anything with rigour, analysis, nuance, dialectic or even facts and you are an East Coast Liberal Elitist Globalist.
