OK sure, but the problem is more the existence of public property producing the "tragedy of the commons" issue.... Everyone's experience with this is different, but from my point of view living in a major US urban area, the problems of homelessness are much more pronounced than that of immigration.... And I think there is data to bear out the conclusion that homeless people are far greater consumers of public services and "disrupters" of public life (in whatever context you're referring to be "forced association") than immigrants.

Replies (2)

JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 9 months ago
That's not my argument. I'm not a utilitarian. Both things are bad. I agree that public property is a problem. The point I am making is one of force. If I am to be forced to either interact or not interact with anyone by a government. I would rather not interact because I can live my life free of interlopers.
OK sure, but in the context of immigration, are you really saying that the existence of public commons constitutes being "forced" to interact with other people? Because I think that's quite a stretch... You could in principle live in a tower with a helipad, or Iive your existence on a private luxury yacht, never having to step foot on public property or be within 100 m of anyone outside of a carefully cultivated bubble.... it's super expensive of course, but it's possible. And then the other problem is, from a fundamental moral perspective, if you are being "forced" to interact with people in public, then by reciprocity, they are being "forced" to interact with you. Who gets to have the moral claim of grievance here?