So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well?

What is your principle? Anarchism, world government, no borders? I honestly do not understand your point.

> So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well?

No, but you should be given a fair chance to arrive legally and legally buy land and legally search for oil. Not just take something that belongs to others, which is a violation of property rights.

He is basically trying to bring out the point that an accident of birth should not be the basis for discrimination. He is doing that by making analogies that are uncomfortable rather than stating it outright. That is his point :).

Why should a people be forced to put up their ancestral lands on the international market for exploitation by others? Because otherwise the West will bomb them?

No, because they in turn, should be given access to purchase your ancestral lands, if they are on their market.

You are unfortunately re-framing the question as some sort of property grab like the parent. Let me repeat: I do NOT condone anyone usurping property by force. My point is to illustrate the principle of making it available on a global market in a reciprocal way.

The fact that the institutions you are born under (like government) are real and race isn't (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/10/6943461/race-social-construct-...).

Are you suggesting India become the 51st state of America?

All your reasons why race isn't real is simply because legal/cultural definitions of it can change dependent on legal and social norms.

So can the idea of "Americanness" - either laws around citizenship/work permission/etc, or cultural/social norms around this.

I'll take a stab: the world is fundamentally unfair to a certain extent...but we want to reduce that. In a perfect world, there should be no restrictions on immigration. However, we live in a world with vast inequalities and differences in culture, wealth etc. So while nationalism is unfair we live with it for now. Racism is analogous, but it concerned people within the US border, governed by US law, already part of US society, and its important for the fairness within the country and society that it be eliminated (not to mention that minorities did protest against institutional racism....and they could not be deported as they are US citizens).

American = has citizenship. Conferred by the very real US citizenship and immigration service.

That isn't a particularly unclear definition.

The US has had clear definitions of race in the past - e.g. "1/16 or more". If we adopt such a definition, will you drop your objections to legalized racism? If not, why not?

It's ok, we've discussed this before. I don't expect anything other than evasion of the core philosophical issue.

The point I made very clearly before is the same as the one I made now.

If you are a US citizen, subject to US laws enforced by the very real institution of the US government which you live under, the US government owes you a living.

If you are, say, a Mongolian citizen, the US government doesn't owe you a living.

Your opinion was apparently that the US owes Mongolian citizens the same thing it owes US citizens, because... reasons.

If you are of any particular race that is an irrelevance. An irrelevance you keep bringing up because you are obsessed with race to a point that is frankly disturbing.

Government and race are certainly both social constructs.

This is an anti-science position.

Good question. I would say, collective ownership. A country can be thought of as 'owned' by its people, with the rules of ownership agreed upon by the owners themselves (everyone owns an equal share -> 1 person 1 vote, ownership may not be transfered, but is given upon being born in the country or to an owner, and so on). This way, a country reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favour?

In that case, I suppose it's reasonable for a historically white suburb (with all white owners) to create rules for themselves that keep blacks out?

That way, a municipality reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favor?

It is not. Nothing in the thought experiment implies the laws of the country are not superior to those of the municipality. And as those laws require the country to treat all its citizens equaly and/or explicitly forbid discrimination, a municiaplity could not legally create such rules.

This is not a hypothetical - the collective ownership way of thinking applies just fine to the US, where such discrimination was ruled illegal.

Sure, but why stop the collective ownership at the border? Why not have everyone have a share of the whole world?

What is the fundamental difference that makes "municipality : country" nonanalogous to "country : world"?

We don't have a world government.