« What the BP Spill Has to Do with Iran | Main | My Book »

June 26, 2010



An interesting discussion, but the claim with which Nathan ends needs significant clarification to have a stable interpretation. What parts of the policy? I doubt it is 100% bad from any perspective, nor is it likely to be 100% good from any perspective. Which portions does Nathan think are globally and obviously indefensible compared to identified alternatives? I understand that Nathan has taken positions before, but it's perhaps risky to assign interlocutors the task of deriving the relationships between those views and this approach.

Nathan Smith

Not "globally and obviously indefensible." To someone who lived in a society where men were traditionally forbidden to carry heavy loads it might not be obvious why this is wrong. It might even seem "obvious" that things had to be this way.

I would say that a right to migrate, curtailable for certain specific reasons but not arbitrarily, is to be preferred to the current system of migration restriction by arbitrary bureaucratic discretion, from any valid meta-ethical perspective.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Only use a payday cash advance as a last resort.


Blog powered by Typepad