Conversation

Replying to
IoM governance would include a macro (nation level) refugee-credit type market similar to carbon credit, based on globally shared responsibility for creating refugees. And an individual-level market mechanism like a “migrantcoin” currency to bookkeep detailed resource flows.
1
3
Crucial design factor: cities (like Utica, NY) would opt-in to IoM, providing capacity in return for insuring own needs for displacement insurance and share of aid monies. Of course vast disparities in exposures to risks so refugee credit scheme will be tricky to design.
1
4
Nation-level policing of borders would still matter, but only at the level of dealing with security threats. Cities would issue migration “tickets” based on capacity, not nations. But nations would vet for *real* security threats at borders. That would be much smaller, like 5%.
1
4
Note, much of this merely formalizes what already happens informally. Migrants don’t vaguely move from country to country, they move from city to city. Nobody *wants* to be stuck in a desert tent cities/de facto concentration camps run by military police for years.
1
8
A 2x2: X= acute vs chronic displacement pressure Y = opportunity pull vs crisis push. You get 4 categories of migration flow. The opportunity-pull flows are what create a lot of wealth (gold rushes, tech booms, brain drains) via talent swarming. It’s the same logistics problem.
2
4
You want the IoM to encourage constant flows and circulations, turning crisis-push flows into opportunity-pull flows. Use humanitarian relief actions to automatically bootstrap labor-market efficiency upgrades. Historically this has always happened anyway.
1
2
Half of American science/technology leadership in the last century has been due to refugee-turned-swarm-talent flows. Like Hungarian mathematicians around WW2. We just need to scale up, globalize, and democratize the process.
2
10
Replying to
There should be an accounting for how much a migrant can give and how much will he be given by the host State. Kind of a return of investment.
1
Replying to
This is a really bad idea. It assumes that states and native residents of them have intrinsic value that requires no justification, but people coming from elsewhere do. Either look at mutual value any of the 3 provide to each other or none.
1
Replying to
In Ancapia, natives should be evaluated that way too, and most people would actually have good measurements. It's accounting for the value of the infrastructure put in place.
1
Replying to
Can't do that without implicitly justifying the violence required to put the infrastructure in place. In general, this kinda of utilitarianism leads to infinite regress and the value of everything becomes ambiguous/ill posed.
Replying to
The longer ago the violence, the lesser its effect is today if the same violence happened in a most recent time, so in infinite regress the value tend to zero. I wonder the rate of this decay. The same value decay should be applied for national infrastructure itself.
1