>>2835223Ah yes that thing. I must again apologize for
>>>/pol/ on your board.
I see two associated problems here. First:
>"If you don't like it here then leave"Let us ignore questions regarding the general morality of such statement but for the sake of discussion discuss:
>leave where ? In a world wheren the grass on the other side seems always greener and everyone want's to have some of which they have elsewhere, ultimately making every place the same as somewhere else (well unless you just leave people alone for a change).
Two of those abstract things on the othetr side of the fence:
Multicultural immigrant society and strong universal wellfare states.
Those things are mutually exclusive for reasons I will briefly get into later.
Ironically, it is the same "you can always leave" types, who instead of leaving want to make those changes. So in the US, where there is historically a strong sense of individualism, some types peer over to europe and go "that strong social security, I want that here too" while at the same time some europoor peers over to the US, which historically had a multicultural society and is like "that immigrant society, I want that here too".
Both are missing two things:
>you can always leaveliterally one of their own goto arguments.
And the other thing is that they have something the other guy doesn't and the differences exist because thw things in question are mutually exclusive.
You can have wellfare, but people will only go along as long as there is an exclusive group that is dependantly defined and the people can relate to. Once you explain to it you have to put in just like before but the benefactors might grow to arbitary numbers over night it wont work anymore.
On the other hand you can admit anyone in as long as everyone individually gets to choose wether they want to associate with the other guy or not. Individualism.
You just can't have both. Society open to everyone that demands mutual support from everyone or vice versa.
