Moderation Questions

LOOL

This kind of proves that it's not about immigration.

Luciom,

I'm not like you. If there are groups of poor people in the world who are less educated and more likely to become criminals, I want to invite them to live where I live in a place that has more opportunity even if it increases my personal risk, I think it lowers the risks to humans generally.

But, also, I love freedom and I don't tell other people what streets they can walk down and what they can do unless they specifically and not some general class of people that I think they belong to have threatened me.

And Japan seems great. I really want to go there and could see retiring there if possible. And the no crime thing is very attractive. But it's on me as a freedom lover, to go where I like and not to tell other people where they are allowed to be.

It is not about immigration, it is specifically about allowing any immigration of young uneducated men in fact. Which should be at a very clear 0.

We can take in as many women as we want and that's only a gain, we can take in as many older men as we want to, or young skilled men (especially with rich relatives) as we want to with no risk

What’s stopping us from taking in these young men and integrating and educating them if the problem is their poverty?

Not if in their own original country law enforcement is much stricter because they don't have the luxury of treating "human rights" the same way we do no. You increase risk worldwide.

I love freedom and that includes property rights. Everything in Italy exists because of what our ancestors did, and it's not like people who don't share our ancestors have ANY claim at enjoying anything at all that exists in italy, same as you don't think you have a right to use the condo pool of a building you don't rent in or own a piece of , do you?

Walking by the colosseum (or any other thing in Italy of value) is exactly the same privilege as accessing a private park, except the owners are the italian people, and we have all rights to decide who can access our property.

The studies don't support your bullshiit thesis I'm afraid.

Fair point even though SF is like the 30th most dangerous city in the US with a population over 200k.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un...

No, I don't think like that at all or respect it. I'm not a nationalist.

And I don't think you love freedom at all.

It costs a ton of money which we don't have? and why should you even think of spending a single eur on anyone who isn't a citizen to begin with, as long as at least a single citizen has an unmet need? that should be actually fully unconstitutional and treasonous.

I mean i am also against spending my money on other citizens over a very very basic threshold, why would i ever agree to spend on others as well?

Btw it's absolutely not a given that you can fix a 19y old with a terrible past and 0 education at all, other than waiting for him to become much older.

We didn't fix italian domestic native criminality by "integrating and educating them", we fixed it by having fewer kids and through generations of slow improvement (in the center-north).

I should take in uneducated young men, spend money on them for 2 generations, so that MAYBE if everything goes well in 2100 their grandkids aren't a problem anymore for us?

I think you need a reminder of what Europeans' ancestors did, including slavery and the widespread theft of colonialism.

So you think a group of people spends money for generations to build something, upkeep and improve it, and if it is "public" (shared by the people who built it, their heirs, and others they explicitly allowed in) in that area it is public for the world? that's the idea?

There is no freedom if strong , enforceable property rights don't exist

Aside from the most correct answer being you should just love freedom...

Yes, you should. The point of life is to be good and noble. Read some of your countryman Marcus Aurelius.

Colonialism was an immense benefit for the colonized countries, all countries did slavery (and catholic countries where those that stopped doing it sooner than everyone else in the world) so that is irrelevant as a criticism.

Oh and btw EVEN IF for some reasons Italy specifically had "done wrong things in the past" in aggregate (something i deeply disagree with) that wouldn't inform my evaluation in any way or form in the slightest, my only moral imperative is to do my rational self interest and nothing else.

I mean...Italy was doing industrial-scale slavery long before most other countries so there's not much to brag about there.

You're probably no closer a relation to the people who built the Colosseum than the people on the boats you revile. I do not respect your inheritance from 1/2^100 genetic relations. About 1/4 is about as far as I respect.

I did have an interesting chat with some Indian colleagues once. Being educated and in good jobs here they were very much in favour of the Raj despite the huge theft it involved, while I was very much against it on the grounds of self-determination or what microbet would call freedom.

Some of you have never been mugged by children and it shows

In Baltimore back in the early aughts, it was a rite of passage lol

That's the same as telling me i have some obligation to charity, it has nothing to do with freedom at all though.

My city abolished it first in the world and there was no Italy before 1861 so please elaborate more.

He has more genes in common with a random African than he does with the European living next door to him, a fact I like to remind him of from time to time.

Colosseum is still there only because of decisions made every generation after it was built by people who lived in the area.

I might not be close ancestor-wise to the actual builders than people from Mali (although i am pretty sure that's false) but i am certainly closer to those who in 1800, 1825, 1850, 1875, 1900 and so on kept deciding on not demolishing it.

You're right and that's why I said the most correct answer was freedom.

You should also be good.

These things are not at all alike. People with Italian citizenship have the same claim to things in Italy, regardless of their ancestry. Just as a condo owner has rights of ownership based on a contract, not their relationship to who built the condo. Citizenship is the defining characteristic, not ancestry.

If you want to talk proudly of your inheritance from the Romans you really do have to take the flak for the slaves too, you know.

Because of our explicit choice to take them in. A choice which i am discussing how should be used, ie i am exactly discussing who to let in and who to not let in our common property. Common among us, not "the world".

In italy though it's ancestry legally for now for the vast majority, we have ius sanguinis and no ius soli (you can be born here, doesn't make you a citizen) and we allow people with italian ancestors (even great-great parents) to get citizenship.