I think Dan makes a few errors. One is that he doesn't have an overarching political theory, which is fine, but it should make the strength to which he holds his position weaker. If you're unwilling to stake out principles to be challenged on their implications, then you have less reason to believe that any of your views are correct. Two is the assumption of libertarian anarchism. We want to know what the account is for the state having the amount of authority required to have the right to harmfully coerce Marvin. This does not entail that all authority is unjustified. Three is that he rejects the economic research that shows immigrants are a (large) positive benefit, saying that the research was done on much more limited migration. A paper Caplan commonly sites is Clemens 2011, but immigrants as a percent of the population hasn't gone up THAT much since even 2000. Also, he presents no research of his own, which ought to be crucial. Finally, he says that a country is more analogous to a family than a club or marketplace. Why would anyone treat 300 million people whom they've never met as a family? Absurd. And even if we were a family, that still wouldn't justify harmfully coercing Marvin without some account of authority, as using harmful coercion on a non-family member to prevent competition of a job is prima facie unjustified.
Good lord that was hard to watch. Both speakers litter their sentences with "um" and "like." Demetriou is a particularly bad offender. His classes must be torture.
Dan says that taking the anarchist view is not persuasive, but since when is persuasiveness equivalent to truth? Galileo's arguments about the sun and the earth were not persuasive to the church, but that doesn't mean that he was wrong, it just means that the church didn't want to be contradicted and have their narrative disrupted. Philosophy is about finding the truth no matter whether people like the truth or find it easy to digest or not.
You see open borders in the EU & Europe. Germany is experiencing very high immigration of slavic, romanian, hungarian and italian people and is doing pretty fine with it. With a population of about 80 Mio it absorbed in 2 years 1.16 Mio ukrainians.
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky One could say it would fare better had it allowed free >=IQ120 migration (and more female immigration). Unfortunately they let IQ>120 students from third countries struggle with residency permissions.
![[Panel Discussion] Secondary Sanctions and the international legal order](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SLDd0MBTlPE/mqdefault.jpg)
Why is Huemer being cut off during the Q&A?
I think Dan makes a few errors.
One is that he doesn't have an overarching political theory, which is fine, but it should make the strength to which he holds his position weaker. If you're unwilling to stake out principles to be challenged on their implications, then you have less reason to believe that any of your views are correct.
Two is the assumption of libertarian anarchism. We want to know what the account is for the state having the amount of authority required to have the right to harmfully coerce Marvin. This does not entail that all authority is unjustified.
Three is that he rejects the economic research that shows immigrants are a (large) positive benefit, saying that the research was done on much more limited migration. A paper Caplan commonly sites is Clemens 2011, but immigrants as a percent of the population hasn't gone up THAT much since even 2000. Also, he presents no research of his own, which ought to be crucial.
Finally, he says that a country is more analogous to a family than a club or marketplace. Why would anyone treat 300 million people whom they've never met as a family? Absurd. And even if we were a family, that still wouldn't justify harmfully coercing Marvin without some account of authority, as using harmful coercion on a non-family member to prevent competition of a job is prima facie unjustified.
Who's the philosopher who questions him a bunch?
Good lord that was hard to watch. Both speakers litter their sentences with "um" and "like." Demetriou is a particularly bad offender. His classes must be torture.
Dan says that taking the anarchist view is not persuasive, but since when is persuasiveness equivalent to truth? Galileo's arguments about the sun and the earth were not persuasive to the church, but that doesn't mean that he was wrong, it just means that the church didn't want to be contradicted and have their narrative disrupted. Philosophy is about finding the truth no matter whether people like the truth or find it easy to digest or not.
You see open borders in the EU & Europe. Germany is experiencing very high immigration of slavic, romanian, hungarian and italian people and is doing pretty fine with it. With a population of about 80 Mio it absorbed in 2 years 1.16 Mio ukrainians.
Is this a joke? Mass migration especially from third world countries into germany has been a desaster, .
We do dont fine 😂 im German and i dont know what your talking about
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky One could say it would fare better had it allowed free >=IQ120 migration (and more female immigration). Unfortunately they let IQ>120 students from third countries struggle with residency permissions.
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky It could fare even better with free IQ=>120 immigration in addition to relaxed immigration for women.
@@PeterPeter-qc7ky All my replies get deleted. One can not talk in favour of open borders for IQ>=120 people and women on this platform.
You can always get them with the Izreel question.
In my humble opinion Adam Driver lost the debate here. Just saying.
Lol, Adam Driver after doing some crack ROFL!