an_cap

Nice motte and bailey there between "people who can be deported if they complain about their working conditions" and non-compete clauses.

Can you point me to a capitalist who wants to expand the category of workers without the right to switch jobs?

How was my comment dishonest?

The an_cap position on immigration is open borders which is the opposite of "people who can be deported if they complain about their working conditions". Feel free to check the comment history.

'Browsing: enabled' doesn't actually work though. In the referenced thread, that comment is a joke.

At the risk of cementing your conviction of my troll status, I have some civics 101 questions for you. (I also have rocket science questions, but I'll leave that for another day.)

1. At a time when blacks were not citizens of the United States, many people argued that giving blacks basic freedoms would screw the whites that the government represented. I hope we all agree that according to basic human decency 101 that was not a compelling argument.

2. This is true even if it would indeed screw over whites by say pushing down their wages from, oh I don't know, absurdly high to only moderately high.

3. Which freedoms are privileges and which are rights? The freedom to not be a slave, a component of which was working for whomever you wanted, seems to be a right. The freedom to rent an apartment from a willing landlord irrespective of your skin color seems to be a right. But the freedom to work for Oracle for less money than you'd like if I was born in the wrong country seems not to be one. I'd appreciate a civics 101 lesson on why.

Actually, I suspect its easier to get a full-body skin graft than it is for a low-skilled third-worlder to get an American citizenship.

I'm just engaging in common-sense ethical reasoning. It seems wrong to require that all whites employ a much higher bar for hiring blacks. And, I have the same intuition about requiring all Americans employ a much higher bar for hiring foreigners.

Also, I think there is a big difference between allowing discrimination (which is only wrong if you belong to a protected class) and requiring discrimination, which is pretty much always wrong.

So its one thing to argue about whether employers should be allowed to discriminate against foreigners (or blacks). There are some good arguments on both sides. But I don't think there are any good arguments in favor of requiring that employers discriminate against foreigners (or blacks).

Might makes right. Got it.

Edit : Sorry addicted, I interpreted your comment as a justification, not as historical account. My bad.

How so? I claim that severe discrimination (like banning a group of people from entry level positions) based on circumstances of birth is ethically dubious. I think that's why we don't entertain the idea of banning people from entry level work because they were born to black parents. Why doesn't it generalize to being born to Indian parents?

Why is it morally acceptable for a country to prioritize the prosperity of its own citizens, but not for whites to prioritize the prosperity of fellow whites?