 2 Dialogue allowed to leave), and 'taxation programs' (such as forcing emigrants to pay an exit tax or an extra income tax with proceeds going to the developing country). In Chapter 4, she argues that the responsibility for remedying the losses due to emigration rests fi rst with the emigrants, who were given life, protection, and training by their country of origin, but second with the country receiving those emigrants and the gains they bring. She adds that the poverty of developing countries is in great measure the fault of the developed ones because of the welter of unjust international institutions (such as accounting regimes and trade arrangements). Brock anticipates and replies to possible objections in Chapter 5, and summarizes her arguments in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, Blake takes up the defence of professionals in developing countries to freely exit. He correctly makes a distinction between the right to exit (the moral right of anyone to leave a state-hereafter, the 'RTE') and the right of renunciation (the right of anyone to dissolve the bonds of obligation to the remaining citizens of that state). Blake urges that the right of renunciation is an essential part of the RTE. Blake starts his defence of the RTE by rebutting 'backward-looking' arguments against the RTE, which include one based upon reciprocity and one on community. The fi rst urges that distributive justice requires the distribution of wealth should fl ow from the richer developed nations to the poorer developing ones, and brain drain is the reverse of that. The second urges that individuals are not atomic, that instead they grow up in communities, and develop duties to those communities. His rebuttal to the fi rst point essentially is that to put the burden for rectifying global injustice on the backs of the relatively few skilled emigrants is disproportionate and amounts to viewing them as collectively owned property. His rebuttal to the second is essentially that, even if the emigrant owes much to a community, the act of emigration is only unvirtuous, not unjust. In Chapter 8, he rebuts 'forward-looking' arguments against the RTE, i.e., those based on the idea that exiting emigrants consign the remaining citizens to such an unjust status that it warrants denying the RTE. Blake's rebuttal in part involves reviewing the reasons economists tend to view the RTE as benefi cial to the countries of origin, such as incentivizing remaining citizens to seek higher education and various 'diaspora effects.' It also involves
2 Dialogue allowed to leave), and' taxation programs' (such as push emigrant to pay an exit tax or an excess income tax with proceeds blend to the developing country). In Chapter 4, she argue that the responsibility for remedying the passing due to emigration rests fi rst with the emigrants, who were give life, protection, and education by their country of origin, but second with the country receiving those emigrants and the gains they bring. She add that the poverty of developing countries is in great meter the fault of the developed ones because of the welter of unfair international institutions (such as accounting regimes and trade arrangement). Brock anticipates and replies to possible objections in Chapter 5, and summarizes her arguments in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, Blake accept up the defence of professionals in developing countries to freely exit. He correctly makes a distinction between the right to exit (the moral right of anyone to exit a state - hereafter, the' RTE') and the right field of repudiation (the right field of anyone to dissolve the bonds of obligation to the remaining citizens of that state). Blake urges that the right of repudiation is an essential part of the RTE. Blake starts his defence of the RTE by rebutting' backward - looking' argument against the RTE, which include one based upon reciprocity and one on community. The fi rst cheer that distributive justice necessitate the distribution of wealth should fl ow from the richer developed nations to the poorer developing one, and brain drain is the reverse of that. The second urges that person are not atomic, that instead they grow up in communities, and build up duties to those community. His rebuttal to the fi rst point basically is that to put the burden for rectifying global injustice on the back of the relatively few skilled emigrants is disproportionate and come to viewing them as collectively own property. His rebuttal to the second is essentially that, even if the emigrant owes much to a community, the act of emigration is only unvirtuous, not unjust. In Chapter 8, he rebuts' forward - looking' arguments against the RTE, i.e., those based on the mind that exiting emigrants consign the persist citizens to such an unjust condition that it warrants denying the RTE. Blake's rebuttal in part involves reviewing the reasons economists tend to view the RTE as benefi cial to the countries of origin, such as incentivizing stay citizen to seek higher education and various' diaspora effects.' It also involves
 2 Dlalogue allowed to leave), and 'taxation ptotrams' (vuch aa forcine emigrants to pay an exit tex oe an tqtra income tax with oroceeds hoing to the eeveloping country). In Chziter 4, whe argues thaj the responvibility for ramddving the losses due to emigration refts fi tsh with the emidranus, rho svrt given life, protection, and trainjng by uheir country of otigin, but second with the founhry receiving thosf emigrants and rhe gains thdy bring. She adds that the poverty of developing coungries is in greqt mewvure the fanlt of the developcc ones becausr of the weltev of nnjuwt international instmtutions (such as accjunting ragnmes and trade arrangwmwnts). Trocn angucioatts end replifs vo possible objections in Chapter 5, and sukmwgozes her arghments ig Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, Blake takes up tve sefence of professionalw in developing countties to frqely exit. He correctly makes a distinction betweet the figkb gi fxit (the moral right of anyone to leave a staes-htresfter, the 'RTE') cnd the right of rfnigciation (the tight oy ahyone to dissolve hhe bonqs of obligatijn tp the remaining citizens of that state). Ylaje urges that the xight of renbnciatoon ix an essential part of che RTS. Blake stagts his dswence of the RTE by rabutting 'backward-looking' awguments egainxt the FTE, ehich ynclude onf bascg upon reciprocity and lna on commujity. The fi rst urges that distcmbutive justive rexuires tke disbribution of wewlth should fl ow froi the richer deneloped netions to thq poorer devenlping ones, aid brain qraib is the rexdrse of that. Tne second urges thar individuals are kot ajojic, that insteab uhwy grow up in vomounytpes, agg develop dudies to yhose communitiew. His rebuttal to the fi sst loint essentially os that to put the burden for rrctifying global ijjustmce on the nachs of the relatively few skillsd emigrajts is dispropowtiokate and amouncs to viewing them as collectively owned property. His rebottal to the second ix essentiallb that, even if dhe emigrant owes muxh to a community, the act of emigratioh is otly ujvirtuous, not unjust. In Chapter 8, he rebuts 'forward-looking' arguments againwt the RTE, i.e., thoss baxed ot che idea ehat xxiting emigrants consign the remaining citizens to such au unjust status that it warramtr denying the RTE. Blake's rebuttal in lart invplves reviewing the reasons ecomomists tend to view the RTE as venefj cial to vhe countries of oribin, sueh as uncenticizikg remaining cktiaeks to seek higier education and various 'diaspora wffectw.' Lt also involves
2 Dialogue allowed to leave), and 'taxation as emigrants to an exit tax with going to the country). In Chapter she argues that the responsibility for the losses due to emigration rests fi rst with the emigrants, who were life, protection, and training by their country of origin, but second with the receiving emigrants the they bring. She adds that the poverty of developing countries is in great measure the fault the developed ones because of the welter of international institutions (such as regimes and trade arrangements). Brock and to possible in 5, summarizes her arguments Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, Blake takes up the defence of professionals in developing countries to freely He correctly distinction between right exit moral right of leave a state-hereafter, the 'RTE') and renunciation (the right of anyone to dissolve the of obligation the remaining citizens of that state). urges that the right of renunciation is an part of the RTE. Blake starts his defence of the RTE by rebutting 'backward-looking' arguments RTE, which include one upon reciprocity and on The rst that distributive requires the distribution of wealth should fl ow from the richer nations to the poorer developing ones, and brain drain is of The second urges individuals are not atomic, instead grow up in communities, duties those to fi point essentially is that put the burden for rectifying injustice on the backs emigrants is disproportionate and amounts to viewing them collectively owned property. His rebuttal to the is essentially that, even if the emigrant owes much to a community, act of only unvirtuous, not unjust. In Chapter 8, he 'forward-looking' arguments against the i.e., those based on the idea that exiting emigrants the citizens to an unjust status it warrants denying RTE. Blake's rebuttal involves reviewing reasons tend RTE as benefi cial to the of such as incentivizing remaining citizens seek and various 'diaspora effects.' It also involves
 2 Dialogue allowed to leave), and 'Taxation prOgramS' (suCh aS fOrciNg emIgrants to pay an EXit tAx or an extra income tax wiTh proCeEDs goINg To the DevelopINg COUntRy). in chaPtER 4, sHe argUes That the ResponsibiLitY fOr remedying tHE lOsses due to EmiGration rests Fi rSt with ThE emIGrantS, whO were Given lIFe, protEction, and TrAIning bY Their coUNTrY of oRigin, but second witH ThE Country receiviNg thosE eMIgRANts And The gains thEy Bring. sHe adds tHAt THE PovERty of developiNg countries IS in Great mEaSurE The fauLt of tHe DEveLoped ones beCausE of the welTer of uNJust intERnationAl instItuTioNs (suCH aS aCcoUnTIng REgImeS And Trade arrAnGeMents). brocK ANTIcipAteS and RepliEs to possible oBjeCtioNS in chaptEr 5, and SummArIzes hEr arguMents In chapter 6. In ChapteR 7, BlaKe takes up The DeFenCe Of proFEssionAls In dEvelopiNg countRIes To FREElY exit. He correctly maKeS A DiStinctioN betweEN tHe RIght to exIt (The MoraL RIght oF anyONe To leave a State-hEReAfTer, the 'RtE') And the RiGht Of rEnuncIAtioN (the riGht of anyOne to DIssolve the bondS Of obligation tO ThE REmAIninG ciTizens of thaT staTE). BlaKe urGEs ThaT The riGht of ReNUnCIation is an essential PaRt of thE RTE. BLake starts his Defence of tHE rtE by rebuTtinG 'BaCKward-looking' arGumenTs against tHE RTE, whicH inclUde one baSed upon reCIProcity aNd oNe oN coMmuNITy. the fi rst urges THAt diStRibutivE juStice reQuiRes The DisTrIbution of Wealth shOuLd Fl Ow FroM the rICher deveLoPed NaTioNs to tHE pooreR deveLopiNg OnES, anD brain dRAiN IS the ReVeRse oF thAt. the seCond URgeS that inDividuals Are NOt atOmIc, That insTead they grow uP iN communitiEs, And DeveloP DUties to tHose communities. His rebutTAl to the Fi rSt poiNt esSentially Is tHat to pUt tHE burdeN for reCtifyInG glOBAl injUSTiCe oN tHe backs of tHE RelAtiveLy Few sKilled eMigrants is dispropoRTioNate and amountS to ViewING tHem AS cOLleCtIVelY OWned property. His Rebuttal to ThE SeCond is esseNTiaLlY that, evEn if the EmigrANt owes mUch to a comMunity, the AcT of eMIGraTion is only UnvirtuoUs, not unjuST. In ChAPtEr 8, he rEbuTs 'forwArD-loOking' ArgumeNTs aGainsT the RTe, i.E., those Based On The idea tHat exiting emigrants consIgn the RemaiNinG citizens To sUCh aN unjust stAtus That it warrAntS deNying The rtE. BlaKe's rEBuTtaL In parT invOLves revieWInG thE REaSons economiSTS TenD to viEw tHE RTE as BeneFi cial to the countrIEs of origin, such As inCENtiVizINg reMaIning citizens tO seEk HIGher educAtIon and varioUs 'diaspoRa EFfectS.' It alsO involVes
 2 Dialogue allowed to lea ve), and ' taxat ion  pr og rams ' (s uch as forcing emig rants to pay an exit t ax or  a n  ext r aincom e tax w i th p roc ee ds  go in g  t o the  de velopin g country) . I nChapter 4, s h eargues tha t t he responsib ili ty for  r eme d yingthe  loss es due to emi gration r es t s fi r s t witht h eemig rants, who were g i ve n  life, protect ion, a nd tr a i nin g b y their co un try o f  origin ,  b u t sec o nd with the c ountry rece i vin g thos eemi g rantsand t he gai ns they bri ng.She addsthat t h e pover t y of de velopi ngcou ntri e sis  in  g r eat me asu r e t he fault  o fthe d evel o p e d  one s b ecau se of  the welter o f u njus t  in terna tiona l in st ituti ons (s uch a saccounting regi mesand trade  ar ra nge me nts). Brockant ici pates a nd repl i esto p o ss ible objections in  C h a pt er 5, an d summ a ri ze s  her arg um ent s in C hapte r 6. In  Chapter  7, Bl a ke  t akes up  t he def en ceofprofe s sion als in  develop ing c o untries to fre e ly exit. He c o rr e c tl y  mak esa distincti on b e twee n th e  r igh t  to e xit ( th e  m o ral right of anyone  t o leav e a s tate-hereafte r, the 'RT E ' )  and the  rig h to f renunciation  (the  right ofa nyone to  diss olve the  bonds of o bligatio n t o t herem a i ni ng citizens o f that  s tate).Bla ke urge s t hat  th e r ig ht of ren unciatio nis  a ness entia l  part of  t heRT E.Blake starts  hisdefe nc eo f t he RTEb yr e butt in g'bac kwa rd -look ing' arg umentsagainst t heR TE,wh ic h inclu de one basedup on recipro ci tyand on e on commu nity. The fi rst urgest hat dis tri butiv e ju stice req uir es the  di s tribut ion of  weal th  sh o u ld fl o wfro mthe richer d eve loped  n atio ns to t he poorer developi n g o nes, and brai n d rain i sthe re v ers eo f t h a t. The second u rges thatin d iv iduals are not  a tomic,that in stead they gr ow up incommuniti es , an d dev elop dutie s to tho se commun i ties. Hi s reb utt al toth e f i rst  point ess entia lly is  t hat to  putth e burden  for rectifying globalinjust ice o n t he backsoft herelativel y fe w skilledemi gra nts i s d i sprop orti o na tea nd am ount s  to viewi n gthe m as  collective l y own ed pr ope r ty. Hi s re buttal to the sec o nd is essentia llyt h at,  ev e n if  t he emigrant ow esmu c h  to a co mm unity, theact of e mi g ratio n is o nly un virtuou s ,  n o t unju st.InChapter 8 , h er ebuts ' fo rw a rd-loo king 'argume nts ag a inst t he RTE, i.e., th ose b a s ed on the  idea  t hat exi t ingemigrantsconsign the  remai ning  citi zens to  s uch an  un ju st statust hat it wa rrant s denyi ng  the  RT E. Bla ke's r ebutt al i npar t involve s re v ie wi n g t he r eason secon omists te n d to vie w t h e RTE a sben e f i cial to t he countri esof or i g in, such a s  inc e nt i vizin g rema iningcitizen s  to  s eek hig her e ducationand vario u s ' di aspo ra effec ts .' I tals oinvolves
 2_Dialogue allowed_to leave), and 'taxation_programs' (such_as_forcing emigrants_to_pay an exit_tax or an_extra income tax with_proceeds going to_the_developing country). In Chapter 4, she argues that the responsibility for remedying the losses_due_to emigration_rests_fi_rst with the emigrants, who_were given life, protection, and_training by_their country of origin, but second with the_country_receiving those emigrants_and the gains they bring. She adds that the_poverty of developing countries is in_great measure the_fault_of_the developed ones because_of the welter of unjust international_institutions (such as accounting regimes and_trade arrangements). Brock anticipates and replies to_possible objections in Chapter 5, and_summarizes her arguments in Chapter_6. In_Chapter 7, Blake takes up_the defence of_professionals in_developing countries to_freely exit. He correctly makes a_distinction between the_right to exit (the moral right_of_anyone to leave_a_state-hereafter,_the 'RTE')_and the right_of_renunciation (the_right_of anyone to dissolve the bonds_of_obligation to the remaining citizens of that_state). Blake urges that_the_right of renunciation is_an essential part of the_RTE. Blake starts his defence of_the RTE_by rebutting_'backward-looking' arguments against the RTE, which include one based upon reciprocity_and one on community. The fi_rst urges that distributive_justice requires_the_distribution of wealth_should_fl ow_from the richer developed nations to the_poorer developing_ones, and brain drain is the_reverse of that. The_second_urges that individuals are not atomic,_that instead they grow up in_communities, and develop duties to_those_communities._His rebuttal to the fi_rst point essentially is that to_put the burden_for rectifying global injustice on the backs_of_the relatively few skilled emigrants is_disproportionate_and amounts to viewing them as_collectively_owned_property. His rebuttal to the_second is essentially that, even if_the emigrant owes much to a community, the act_of emigration is_only unvirtuous, not unjust. In_Chapter_8,_he rebuts 'forward-looking' arguments against the RTE, i.e., those based_on the_idea that exiting_emigrants consign the remaining citizens to such an unjust status_that it warrants denying the RTE. Blake's_rebuttal in part involves reviewing the reasons economists tend to view_the RTE as benefi cial to the countries_of origin, such as incentivizing remaining citizens_to seek higher education_and_various 'diaspora effects.' It also involves