innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
I think all form of inheritance is strictly amoral, and I also think capital accumulation is to a degree amoral (note: this doesn't mean earning a wage, but rather earning interest on your already existing capital). So I do not have the problem with needing to distinguish between blood money inheritance and "fair" inheritance, because I believe the latter is oxymoronic. Inheritance is unfair by principle.
Ideally we wouldn't need, and have, either. Currently I don't think we can get rid of inheritance because property matters under the current economic organization, and people care for their families more than they do for others. It's an unfairness that at this stage has to be lessened and compensated in ways other that a complete suppression of inheritances.
But, more importantly for me, there is also the fact that people get attached to the places they lived in, which (if they are not too poor to own them, which is a drama) are theirs as some form of property/right. And become naturally the places their descendants are attached to also. Most people don't move away unless they are made unhappy where they are. That was the shock of modernity, the mass uprooting of people. Refugees are not voluntarily so... To dispossess people of their home as property to pass on may seem theoretically "fairer", but it is a form of violence, and an unnecessary one. One of the mistakes of some past socialist states imo. Letting people own that which they use and pass it on to the family that lives with them, who naturally take possession of it by living there also, is entirely fair. They acquire that right by sharing in that use also. It's the accumulation or retention of superfluous property that is the problem, preventing others from enjoying the same right to have their place.
Can you explain what you mean by that? In my mind, it was a very simple decision of letting millions of people die or drown (what most of Europe and the USA, who were responsible for the crisis in the first place, actually wanted) and saving some of those people from dieing (which is what we ended up doing). Is your problem with the attitude? Can you elaborate on that a bit?
My problem is that these millions of people were set on the move by outright propaganda that the borders would be open. I believe that there was a calculated decision to "import what would become cheap labour". In other words, it was more a pull by Europe (as in: certain european governments) than a push into Europe (by refugees fleeing war). When the borders were announced closed, it mostly ceased. And as the number of those coming dwindled, do did the number of those dying on the trip. If anything the announcement that Europe would take refugees it caused the deaths on that path, because this same Europe didn't organize any kind of air bridge into Turkey's border to transport these refugees in safely, did it? Talk of rescuing the migrants who drowned was deployed to overcome reactions against the policy of opening borders, it was a show of government hypocrisy.
No millions of people would have died if the borders had not been announced "open to refuges", just as no millions of people would have died in Benghazi if Libya hadn't been bombed into civil war. Or Syria thrown into civil war. And in fact no millions died after the flow of refugees was stopped, they just stayed in Turkey, Lebanon, Tunisia, etc. It was lies served with a truckload of hypocrisy: the "humanitarian interventions" caused wars they have not yet ceased, destroyed whole countries and killed or uprooted million of people indeed. And the "humanitarian taking in of refugees" was meant only to then exploit those people inside Europe. Call me cynical but I absolutely I do not trust the announced good intentions of governments who destroyed their lives in the first place, disguised as "humanitarian intervention".
It's not just just black lives that don't matter. It's foreign lives don't matter. Warmongering just goes on and on, producing the same entirely expected results. It's not just the destruction of populations and ransacking of natural resources, it's also the ransacking of populations driven to migration. This is then modern slave trade to supply the underclasses of servants to the used in the developed world. Isn't it nice that those who use them can even claim to be acting all humanitarian? They'll probably get a statue too. To be dumped into a harbor in a century or so.