Quote:
It can't be the "land", because land is still bought and sold by owners
|
Can't it? Sure I don't loose any land I own but NAM immigrants sure can reduce the value of my land. The simplest mechanism is of course
White flight. NAM free neighborhoods with low levels of crime and decent schools become more and more expensive as the numbers of NAMs increase and as the government tries more and more in vain to subsidize them into decent neighborhoods. One could also make a overpopulation argument for the British isles and places like the Netherlands or Belgium but not of course for low density countries like say Slovenia.
Quote:
It can't really be publicly owned natural resources, because England barely has any, and at any rate, the government is in net debt
|
Do you implicitly concede that a such argument can be made for say Saudi Arabia or Norway?
Quote:
The class being claimed as a victim is, in fact, the net recipient of government largesse. They are not being expropriated when people move to the country. So what right should they have to claim victimhood here? What of theirs is being taken?
|
Well lower class Whites in Europe are net recipients of largess. Why would they want competition? And make no mistake no European country has a mix of Thrid worlder in recent decades that wouldn't result in them becoming tax eaters. Especially competition that has a edge since it has welfare specifically targeted at it in the forms of various affirmative action like initiatives.
Quote:
What is it, exactly? What of theirs is being taken?
|
A loss in the subjective feeling in quality of life, fewer friends, less expectations of others cooperating, lower possibility of collective action, increase in zero sum thinking, lower confidence in government and media a drop in voluntary charity and volunteering. Some here may scoff at such claims but these are the results of lowered trust, and as I am sure you are aware ethnic diversity has been shown to lower trust.
Would you agree that the wast masses of the people dislike great inequality? If so don't you conceded that importing less productive people into a previously homogeneous relatively highly productive country like say South Korea will increase inequality? Would you agree that people derive some pride and indirect benefits by living in a country with a high GDP per capita?
GDP per capita must fall in real terms once a threshold is crossed if you have an increasing underclass and a decreasing net tax payer class and social mobility is for whatever reason (due to real differences in ability or new barriers to entry) falling. Sure the White morlocks are ever expanding, but why compound the problem by importing new ones?
What sense does it make for a declining aging higher productive people to try and solve this problem by importing a expanding lower productive people? Instead of helping to support the crazy pension plans the new immigrants actvley compete with the ever more limited resources of the government.
What if the immigrants were machines that did the same work and consumed the same things (housing, food, etc). Should the general populace get a veto over my choice to build such machines? If immigrants where owned and given the same ethical considerations that machines do, if immigrants didn't have the right to vote, ect. (I'll assume the loss of life, health and property that increased crime imports can be abstracted away by a making the machines slightly unsafe for use. I'll also assume falling in love with the machines is not to much a stretch.)
Yes I would not object to the machines being built! Especially since the machines could be at any point disassembled with little frustration, and that once technology improves in the coming decades (GE, cybernetics) people would not object to them being upgraded to match the quality of the other machines we used to build in great quantity but can't seem to anymore. From the responses of even people like HC to genetic engineering this is not at all certain that this can be done with people without massive backlash.
Now let me ask you this way. Say politicians could build machines that would collect a moderate amount of welfare, would self replicate and would vote with 90% fidelity for those politicians who help them keep welfare?
Would you allow new such machines to be built?
If so why would such machines all being like that or just on net being like that make a huge difference? I'm mean sure if they are just on average like that you can surely find a way to ensure all the ones you build or import are on average a bit more the way you would like them, but this isn't happening in Europe.
So we've come to the conclusion that the government keeping its hands out of peoples lives and allowing de facto voluntary segregation and freedom of association can solve things like lower trust and perhaps even White flight. Brutal slavery or at the very least a limiting of suffrage can take care of the rest of the problems. Some might claim the first is doable or even ethical. Very few would claim the second is.
This still leaves aside the fact that people are naturally nepotistic. Genetic interests are being hurt. No matter how you spin things for the individual squirrel the red squirrel is still loosing its habitat because of the introduction of the gray Eastern squirrel. The world at large of course dosen't care which squirrel does its thing. Unlike squirrels however people can be aware of their own groups demise, and most people do put some value on that. A slight exception to this are WEIRD people to some extent, however not all Whites are WEIRD and I think its not a stretch that a smaller proportion of them will be in the coming decades.
Seeing your tribe (be it a sports team or nation or clan) win or do well does incur psychological benefits and increases happiness. Racial minorities tend to see themselves as tribes of this kind.
