.

[rhombot]

i apologize, i didn't mean to imply that.  but if they should act morally, it is because acting morally is in the best interest of their citizens, not because it is moral.

see, i disagree. if individuals have to follow moral rules, then so do all instititions consisting of individuals. otherwise governments are loopholes that allow ethical buck-passing.

[redemption]

some people see these as valid reasons.

Yes, they do - but these reasons rely on circular reasoning.

We don't want them in because we are better off if they're not. Therefore it's legitimate.

It assumes that there should be a "we" and a "them" and that "we" should be able to make admissons decision about "them". The argument's over before it has begun. As I say, circular.

[philibusters]

def. people who act morally as an indvidual don't act morally in groups, and generally the larger the group, the more distanced the individual is from the consequences of the group action.  If you ever "My life" by Bill Clinton he talks about how the most intriguing class he took as an undergrad at Georgetown was about how institutions involve from things that start as engines for a certain policy purpose normally infused with morality, to engine for policy more divorced from morality, to engine that runs to mostly to continue its own existence.

[redemption]

1. i'm serious...i'd like to know what part of human intelligence is not a naturally occuring phenomenon...i mean, i'd seriously like to hear an argument against human intelligence being unnatural

2. wasnt an argument against so i dont see a circularity...you said acts of govt should have legit purposes and i said that, imo, enacting legislation that are in the interests of its citizens is a legit act of govt...where's the circularity?

3. i can concede this...but at what point has the innovator "proven" her point?  i mean, if i'm not wrong most countries have had some sort of immigration policy for close to 100 years (pure assumption, no research or prior knowledge) so how/what should be done to "prove" the innovation of immigration policy beyond the fact that almost all countries has such a policy?

1. We are talking about institutions, not intelligence. If you can tell the difference between a plastic cup and a brain, you'll be able to follow the distinction that I'm making.

2. Circular because you are using the word/concept "citizens". Think about what that means and what it implies.

3. You haven't even started "proving" any point yet. I'll tell you when to stop.

[redemption]

as far as the "we" and "them"...i dont get it...are you seriously advocating that there is no such thing as a "we" and a "them?" or am i misunderstanding something?

If you don't see why "we" and "them" are in inverted commas, you are missing the entire point.

I'm sure someone else will explain it, though. I need to get some sleep in.

[philibusters]

when red says not natural, she is saying they are artificial.  For example the law might classify you as a tresspasser, a licenssee, or one other catergory (3 months later and I am already forgetting torts)-those categories are artificial, maybe you went there cause they accidetnly delievered that person's mail to you, but there is no catergory "person returning misdelivered mail"- you have to fit into one of the artificial categories.  Governments are the same for the most part, is there really a thing the united states??
But Red too stuborn to acknowledge your argument, making governments is what humans do-its encompassed by humanity and explained by the evolving brain and other social sciences. Its natural in that its second nature to humans

If its admitted governments are artificial there is no circularity in saying citizens-its a fixed category, but just like law you can bend the facts to fit into the category.

I can't remember the third thing you were arguing, but in short you both probably right in what you are saying, but talking past each other.

[rhombot]

redemption's off to bed, so maybe i'll take a crack at answering these.

1. all you're doing here is defining out of existence the distinction between "natural" and "artificial" that red was presupposing. everything that humans create is "natural" in your sense.

2. i think red means that what defines citizenship is benefit received from government. so when you say "a government should serve its citizens" you're completing a circle.

3. i'm not sure what red is getting at here. sorry.

[rhombot]

can you draw the distinction between "us" and "them" on a non-arbitrary basis?

[rhombot]

no, citizenships are rather silly.  but that's still the way the world is structured.

so state action that discriminates between citizens and noncitizens is built on a foundation of silliness. when this discrimination becomes an issue of life-and-death, or economic opportunity, it stops being silliness and starts being injustice.

[rhombot]

agreed.

off to bed. later.