Kubrath wrote:I like how you twist the Enlightenment to mean whatever it is that grinds your gears at a given moment. Isn't it intellectual to say that "all men are created equal", or are you going to deny that Thomas Jefferson was part of the Enlightenment period? If that statement holds true, then what right do you have to deny these people their fundamental human right to move? What, you think your ancestors always lived where you are now? What hypocrisy.
And yes, when you're enjoying the wealth built upon the blood and sweat of others, you, the successor of that wealth, will have to answer for the crimes of your ancestors or else should relinquish your wealth. The notion that "I wasn't born in that time, so this has nothing to do with me. My hands are clean!" is bullshit when you directly benefit from all the bone crushing work your colonies have done for you. And if you think that Western slavery is over, then you obviously aren't aware of companies and cartels like Nestle and De Beers.
I'm indeed denying that "all men are created equal" because it's objectively false. What I'm upholding is rather the definition of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen which says that "all men are born and remain equals in rights and liberties", even if this has little to do with the topic discussed.
I also love, by the way, all this mental gymnastic you're making to try to make as if people from the Lumières would have had the same reaction as you when they were championing logic and rationality when you're yourself only following your emotions.
Ignoring the non sequitur of your argument, the fundamental right to move is limited inside the state people reside in; I hope you're aware of it, but no international treaty forced all country to have an open door policy, ya know?
My own origins have little to do with what we're discussing but as you seems to be eager to know them well, let me tell you that I'm the grand-son of a christian syrian who, once he immigrated, perfectly assimilated in France; a thing that little to no muslim arab did.
That is why I'm for only taking the ethnical minorities. Because they're the ones who're in real danger and the ones we know we can integrate.
And no. This is once more pure bullshit built upon emotions rather than logic. Litteraly every fucking wealth of every fucking country is built upon the blood and sweat of others, be it that of their own poor or of their neighbors they invaded and pillaged. If you want to go for the whole "we need to pay for the sins of our forefather", then you need to go for it full way.
Germany should give money to Italy and France to make up for the invasions of the 4th century; Sweden, Danemark and Norway should pay reparation to all the countries of the Baltic and channel sea for the coasts the vikings pillaged and the lands they stole; Hungary, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkey and pretty much every other country of Central Asia should also throw cash to Europe too for all the damages those damn horse riding nomads caused and the cities they burned and let's not forget the fact that the Arabic peninsula, the whole middle-east and North Africa should also pay reparation for all the shit they caused be it in Spain, Portugal (even in France to some extent) and Eastern Europe.
If all those countries, and a fuck load of others, agree to answer for all the exploitation and oppression they forefather caused to us first, then we will maybe agree to do the same too.
