post by [deleted] · · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for

0 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Viliam · 2021-05-13T12:59:01.222Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Considering that there are countries where elections are clearly manipulated, I can't imagine how the "secret will" mechanism would be implemented there. But without the "secret will" mechanism, evil regimes now have even more incentives to kill the people who would try to flee.

Also, respecting existing borders is a Schelling point, and the alternatives can easily escalate to WW3.

I agree that it would be nice if countries that suck could gradually disappear, and millions of people trying to escape a country is quite strong evidence that the country sucks. But the leaders of those countries would disagree, as would their geopolitical allies. So the alternatives are (1) war, (2) sacrificing the lives of millions of people, or (3) taking the refugees and hoping that it does not end up with your country falling apart, as you get people who are culturally incompatible with your values, your population starts to rebel, and it costs lot of money.

comment by ChristianKl · 2021-05-13T19:00:26.731Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The idea that Germany wants to have territory outside it's border completely misunderstands German politics. 

Replies from: mardukofbabylon
comment by YimbyGeorge (mardukofbabylon) · 2021-05-14T08:39:59.991Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Politics is about incentives.  If due to the rightful  share of resources  received from the refugees the German state can legally seize Syrian oilfields  with UN armed support and setup a  oil fund for their citizens - it will be popular. But the seized resources must be setup to pay dividends to citizens.

Imagine every German citizen receiving a 1000$ a year due to an oil fund like they do in Alaska .

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

Replies from: ChristianKl
comment by ChristianKl · 2021-05-14T08:44:41.941Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Peace and stable borders are very valuable. You basically propose getting rid of the Hague Conventions. 1000$ per year per citizens is not worth giving up the Hague Conventions and all the trouble that comes with that.

Replies from: mardukofbabylon
comment by YimbyGeorge (mardukofbabylon) · 2021-05-14T09:01:57.984Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

If there was peace and stable borders everywhere then there would be no refugees.  We need to modify these old conventions to cover present conditions. Let us put it to the vote in the refugee receiving country, I speculate that for a 1000$ a year the average voter will be happy to vote for anyone who will get them  their cash. 

Germany is willing to meddle abroad, as an example they have   been in afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Replies from: ChristianKl
comment by ChristianKl · 2021-05-14T09:31:22.132Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Let us put it to the vote in the refugee receiving country,

Basically, let's destroy the power of the German political institutions before we start.

Germany is willing to meddle abroad, as an example they have   been in afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Nothing in that questioned any of the borders of Afghanistan. It doesn't violate the Hague Conventions. Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that for inner-European peace depends on Germany's promises about respecting the sanctity of borders being believed. 

You also ignore that the money would not come immediately but only after some time and only if the cost of the military to defend the territory is less then the revenue. Military is expensive and might very well be a net cost. 

comment by Dagon · 2021-05-13T15:31:29.893Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I feel that a progressive idea is that all natives of a country have ownership  of its territorial resources including land and oil

That's quite a radical idea, actually - that collective ownership is exactly a sum of individual ownership, and can be decomposed at will into individual private ownership.   Even more radical if you're including semi-private resources like oil fields by a royal family.  It's not implemented anywhere that I know of, and it's unclear how common/popular the idea itself would be.   

I also don't see why any remaining populace (or it's region-based government) would even consider this.  Mostly the attitude toward emigrees falls between "well, I can't stop them" and "good riddance to bad rubbish".

Replies from: mardukofbabylon
comment by YimbyGeorge (mardukofbabylon) · 2021-05-14T08:43:26.336Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I was inspired by the Alaska oil fund 

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

A 1000$ a year for every resident is quite good.

Also why should natural resources be owned by a few oligarchs, or companies,  or a royal family?  

As a consequentialist I would argue that the "resource curse" would be minimised if the ownership or profit from natural resources  is owned instead by  every resident.

Replies from: Dagon
comment by Dagon · 2021-05-14T16:11:16.861Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The Alaska fund is exactly the opposite of your proposal.  It's very clearly not individual ownership or any control over assets, it's a government program to provide a payment to current residents.  Specifically, it doesn't go with a refugee/emigrant when they take residence elsewhere.