Moderation Questions

There is no moral chain of title for any land period. But that said, you still pay for the condo. I think that's fine to respect and something that works out very well for the good of society, and so, it is fine to do that but not without keeping in mind that it's not some god given title and people without land are still entitled to live free and have a share of the Earth.

But...respecting inheritance from absurdly distant relations who one has never met? There's no moral reason to do that and it's not good for society.

With the decline in birthrates who do you suggest fills the surplus demand for the unskilled work that AI isn't ready for yet, if not young men and women from abroad?

I don't think a lot of charity is "being good".

When you spend scarce resources for charity you not only need to see a benefit in doing that, you need to be sure there was no other possible allocation that would have generated higher benefits.

Given being poor today correlates very strongly with lack of good decision making skills for example, departing people with over-average quality of decision making from resources (taxing rich people) to dedicate them to people with low decision making capabilities (giving welfare to poor people) generates worse decisions of consumption in society which has negative aggregate effects.

You can define it "doing good" but i can strongly disagree as well.

And that's before we account for the actual waste and corruption and negative incentives that welfare generates.

And the other allocations as mentioned, like you know research in technology that improves lives.

So i pay for the condo , whily the huge amount in taxes paid to make our country what it is doesn't count? dafuq? My parents and grandparents paid taxes to build and upkeep italy the way it is, that's the inheritance. Nothing lasts even a few generations if you stop caring about it.

people without land have no entitlement to land which has 99%+ of it's value linked to our development in the last 5000+ years, there is no pristine land we are using around here and there wasn't any 2000 years ago.

All land has value here only because us and our ancestors were here and made it valuable. Venice was inhabitable toxic little islands in a poisonous swamp full of disease.

We aren't the USA.

The answer might be yes. Leaving aside any humanitarian reasons, it might be a good investment for other reasons. I’d like to be able to get medical treatment and collect my social security in old age and dwindling population endangers that.

Lack of integration and support is part of the reason why people in this situation would fail though. Lack of language skills and community integration is an additional hurdle that poor native Italians would be less affected by.

Should i remind you a man can sire a lot of children easily? there's a reason fertility is measured in children per woman.

we can take in 2-3x the women than the men, and only take in qualified, educated men (or older ones).

Instead people coming from boats are overwhelmingly men to be clear, it's not 50-50

Unskilled work can be automatized , and btw when i say unskilled i mean actually unskilled, like they can't work in a kitchen even as help.

Don't mix stuff up.

The claim "we do need some immigration to improve the demographic pyramid" can be true without the answer ever coming close to "and so we need to take in unskilled uneducated people who will be a burden to the state for generations".

If ukrainian people create 0 problem for us while other ethnicities create more problem, how can you claim it's about language skills at all?

You also allow naturalization given someone has lived in the country a certain number of years. We were only talking about your opposition to young men, not naturalization generally. You just said there are groups of people that should be allowed to do so. Are you now saying that citizens without Italian ancestry should have less rights?

Each native Italian man gets multiple African women of course.

But that would then pollute the racially pure bloodline with non-indigenous genes that he's so fond of talking about.

Yes i think the naturalization process should be exceptionally harder because it's one thing to let you in and one thing to make you a citizen.

We should in general only naturalize people who are individually measurably a lot better than the median italian.

Opposition to young uneducated poor men is to ENTRANCE. They shouldn't be allowed to enter at all. That's only the first step of a very long process.

Being accepted in as a guest is one threshold, becoming a part of the family is an orders of magnitude (or should be) higher threshold).

And you can't "become" italian, not in the sense i meant the word in the cultural (not legal) sense.

I didn’t say we need to, I said it might make sense to do a better job than we’re doing now at integration if it pays off for society. I’m just not accepting that the proportion of male immigrants now is a net negative or that it couldn’t be improved. If you have some research to show it would be a bad investment I’d be happy to see it.

I also might be wrong about this but it’s my assumption that Ukrainian men who were able to leave the country were probably more educated and affluent than those who didn’t or couldn’t leave. Their proficiency in English might also be better than that of people coming in on boats from Africa.

Are Sicilians and Sardinians cultural Italians? When I was in Sardinia there was much talk of a Sardinian culture.

There is an imbalance right now on the opposite side (from boats: legal immigration is balanced even if not ethnically). We have some countries sending us many more women (eastern europe, philippines iirc) and some countries sending us many more men (northern africa mainly) but that's all legal and mostly linked to sectors of the economy they work in (women in house help, men in factories and construction and so on).

I don't "engineer" anything other than wanting a full stop to young , uneducated, poor men entering from any country in italy.

I don't care what your ancestors did. Maybe not even your parents. I think an allowance for that inheritance is only right on a practical level and morally land should not be ownable at all, but another limited practical allowance might be respectable. And man, claiming ownership over nations because of distant genetic relations is obvious and unjustifiable theft.

Nevertheless despite your protestations you are advocating to take in 2 to 3 times the number of young women than men, which is engineering an imbalance between the sexes.

I can't become a sicilian either and they can't become Bolognese. They might come to live here and if they have children with a woman with bolognese ancestry their children might be bolognese.

My children will never be able to be sicilian either.

Local culture is intermixed with italian nationality but depending on the place you feel a lot more local than italian. I do feel bolognese then european then italian in this order of relevance for example.

But legal structures force me to care about italy as a polity because my money gets violently taken by the entity "italian state" and spent according to the wishes of "italian voters" but if i could i would prefer to have nothing to do with large part of the country and be a completly separated entity within the EU.

I feel more distance toward southern italy than scottish nationalists feel toward english people.

But i mean the same exists in the UK so i suppose you can understand very well the difference between feeling scottish and feeling british, and the fact that you can be both or only scottish depending on your self identity.

Not if those offspring aren't citizens and don't count as Italian. They could do that one drop of blood thing.

Which is why you talking of "culturally Italian" is meaningless.

Luciom's drop of blood is 99% African.

I think the idea that land should not be ownable is pretty dumb , because in developed countries especially in europe but not exclusively, what is valuable is what has been built there and how the land has been developed and that is ownable in a real practical sense.

I don't understand how "not owning land" allows for any economy to exist btw.

I see. But you do think it’s acceptable for the people who you think are worthy of naturalization to have an equal claim to things (legally) as those who have Italian ancestry, right? How far back do you need to be able to trace your roots to be considered Italian in terms of ancestry?

Just because a criminal organization robs you doesn't mean you are morally correct when you follow their rules.

What's meaningless about "4 italian greatparents"?