Walzer on open borders

By -
"To tear down the walls of the state is not . . . to create a world without walls, but rather to create a thousand petty fortresses. The fortress, too, could be torn down: all that is necessary is a global state sufficiently powerful to overwhelm the local communities . . . . The distinctiveness of cultures and groups depends upon closure and, without it, cannot be conceived as a stable feature of human life. If this distinctiveness is a value, as most people (though some of them are global pluralists, and others only local loyalists) seem to believe, then closure must be permitted somewhere. At some level of political organization, something like the sovereign state must take shape and claim the authority to make its own admissions policy, to control and sometimes restrain the flow of immigrants." -- Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice

So I find that Walzer made this point before me: a nation-state, just like any other human group, has the right and the need to control who may become a member of the group.

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy9:36 PM

    a nation-state, just like any other human group, has the right and the need to control who may become a member of the group.

    But I don't think you believe the "just like any other human group" part. If I want to add someone to my company to show up with the group and work at the office every day, but the Nation-State says, "Nope he was born in the wrong country no can do," then you side with the Nation-State's decision, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell9:17 PM

      Why do you assume that Gene thinks that this
      "right" of the nation-state is absolute? Hasn't he done enough posts on principles, prudentia, and so forth that you'd know that this doesn't mean he will always side with a country's immigration rules?

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell1:18 AM

    …a nation-state, just like any other human group, has the right and the need to control who may become a member of the group.

    I'm not sure how much I agree with this. Yes, I believe in an immigration process, but I do not like quotas that much. Then again, I am someone who wishes to see homeowners associations abolished, so I'm not sure if my opinion is worth much in this matter.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more