Monday, July 22, 2019

Is "Kick 'em out" preferable to "You can't leave"?

Some answers don't come easy. Even after days of thought. This is one of those. And I still might be way off-base.

I don't remember hearing about the Soviet Union kicking out-- or "inviting to leave"-- the people who didn't like the Soviet Union. People who would have been happy to leave. Instead, they didn't let anyone leave.

I don't remember hearing about Nazi Germany kicking out all the Jews and other "undesirables" instead of putting them in concentration camps or summarily murdering them. I'll bet at that point these people would have left if allowed, no "kicking out" required. But, nope. They didn't let them leave.

They forced those they didn't like to stay. In concentration camps, in mass graves, or in hiding. But the borders were closed to their egress.

Isn't that the way of all the worst states?

It's never good to round up and cage people who aren't violating others.

No, I'm not saying it's good to kick out people who want to stay and who aren't violating anyone-- it's still a rights violation. But I'd probably prefer to be kicked out than to be caged or murdered.

There are those who richly deserve to be kicked out: those who archate. But who would you curse by sending them all the murderers, rapists, Congressvermin, Supreme Courtjesters, police, bureaucrats, muggers, presidents, burglars, arsonists, etc. you're kicking out? That kind of person isn't welcome in my sphere; how could I burden anyone else with them? (Anyone for building Botany Bay 2 on the far side of the moon? Oh, wait... )

Don't worry-- I'm not going to violate anyone by forcibly kicking them off property I don't own. It would be civilized of them to reciprocate, but you know they won't.

As long as a state is kicking people out instead of forcing them to stay as prisoners (or corpses) it's not as bad as it could be, even though it's not good.

Writing is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid-- and I'm pretty desperate right now.


  1. Kent, I fear there's an error here. It's your first ever, and we're all allowed a few. I made one, only last year...

    German policy was not to "close borders" on Jews who wished to leave, until 1942 after the US entered WW2. On the contrary it was to encourage them to go, though they had to abandon their property; and very many took that option. The Nazis even used them as bargaining chips.

    But after FDR manipulated the US into the war, that changed. There was no place to send them, no bargains to be struck. Policy became the one you described.

    1. Oops.

      I did know that FDR was the reason they could no longer escape to America, but I though it was more along the lines of him closing the borders to them. And I didn't realize they were originally allowed/encouraged to leave Germany (without their property).

      But stay tuned. I'm sure I'll be wrong again soon. ;)

    2. Jim beat me to it.

      In 1933, the Nazis set up an agreement (the Havaara Agreement) with Zionist organizations. That agreement had two purposes: First, to encourage Jews to leave Germany, second, to break the Zionist boycott of Germany.

      Under the agreement, a Jew would be allowed to leave Germany for Palestine, on the condition that a Jewish organization in Palestine bought $X worth of goods from Germany. About 60,000 Jews moved from Germany to Palestine between 1933 and 1939 under that agreement. Other Jews were allowed to leave for other destinations, too -- but of course there was basically an "exit tax" amounting to all their assets.

      Once the war got going in 1939, the Nazis started conquering territory with ever-larger Jewish populations and nowhere to deport them to since they were at war with, well, everyone. In 1942, they came up with the "Final Solution" of just killing them as quickly as possible. I'm sure they killed plenty before that as well, but at least up to 1939, they found it more profitable to steal all their wealth and let them leave.