Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horn
*if i'm right in thinking you believe anyone should be able to live wherever they want (or was that with a prerequisite of a radically different system of governance? i can't remember)
|
It depends on how the organisation of land is handled, as "anywhere you want" could be interpreted to be where someone else currently lives in a very literal sense. But as a general principle, I'm not in favour of immigration restrictions per se - if capital can move freely why can't labour, etc.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that a group of people might choose to have a collective space which they lived on together and such a group might want some sort of privacy.
So maybe you could theoretically have an Amish part of town where only Amish are allowed to live, but that sort of issue would need to be carefully handled. Certainly I would assume exclusionary nation states would be dead, but you might have much smaller organisational units. How land issues would be settled would be up to people involved tbh and the needs/aspirations of one set of individuals would need to be balanced against another. That's a management issue though, not really a matter of ideology.
There is an underlying presumption though on how shit people might be to each other, and that all this occurs in a certain level of affluence and equality.
As for how things are managed now, I'm in favour of reducing the oppressive nature of the immigration system, abolishing restrictions on work, blah, blah, blah - but if imperialism promoted more even development (and stopped ****ing up bits of the planets generally) there'd be less forced migration overall.