Citizenism: how do we deal with it?













Where I stand






2 thoughts on “Citizenism: how do we deal with it?”

  1. Another problem with Approach #3 is that citizenists view their position as the status quo, and thus have little incentive to provide justifications for their beliefs. They seem to view the entire burden of proof as belonging to immigration advocates. My most recent OB blog post could be seen as an attempt to call this stance into question, and we all saw how well that went over.

    There may be value in Approach #2, but in my opinion we should view it as a long-term effort. Current citizenists are unlikely to be moved by citizenist cases for open borders. On the other hand, newcomers to the immigration issue who encounter citizenship first or early could stand to benefit a great deal from #2.

    That said, like you, I gravitate toward #1.

  2. One question is how an individual should focus a particular blog post. Another question is how the editors of the blog should try to guide the overall composition of posts on the blog.

    My preferred approach for the overall composition of the blog would be to have a lot of different arguments made from many different perspectives. I don’t really think the blog as a whole needs to appeal to moderates. I see it being a tool for a “radical brand” to toss around ideas and stretch ourselves.

    In any case, this post prompted me to try and classify my own view re: citizenism, which is probably different from most others who contribute. I think I probably lean a bit toward “neighborism.” That is, I think we have special moral obligations toward those who live near us.

    I also think of the concept of being “near” someone as being related to but not purely dependent on physical distance. I think of it more as a measure of connectedness.

    So, for example, I think I might have a slightly greater moral obligation to someone in China who works at Foxcon than someone who works in agriculture because I directly consume products made by them.

    In any case, strangers who are located near me physically are much more likely to become connected to me in some way than strangers who live very far away. They could, for example, decide to give me a ride if my car breaks down on the way to work. Alternatively, they could decide to mug me.

    In any case, for society to function it is important that we trust those we are connected to, and maybe not so important that we trust those are not connected to.

    I generally think being connected to more people is a good thing. For example, I think there are a lot of benefits in living in a big city. However, I think there are some people that end up being a net cost on their neighbors because they can’t be trusted. Thus, if it were possible to only have trustworthy neighbors I think that would be a worthwhile endeavor.

    I suppose I think it is a fundamental right for people to make reasonable efforts to become less connected to people they don’t trust.

    My problem with borders as they exist today is that they are far too crude. They don’t really correspond very well to those who I am presently connected or to whom I would like to be more or less connected. For example, there are a lot of very industrious and trustworthy people in China and I wish there were fewer barriers between us. Also, as a general rule I think we tend to go too far in relation to people in the US we think are untrustworthy. That is, I think we imprison too many people and exclude many immigrants from our institutions that could be contributors.

    Anyway, I think “neighborism” is an alternative to “citizensim” that might appeal to some who consider themselves “citizenist”. Some flavors of neighborism are isolationist, but there is also a brand of neighborism that welcomes more neighbors.

Leave a Reply