Problem: Can you give me a reply to this post: From Michael Walzers perspective he believes that a community has the moral right to self-determination, which includes the authority to control their boarders. He compares national communities to club memberships, these groups are usually naturally excluded and included based on values, wealth, history, and possibly goals. Using this comparison, the club does not have to allow everyone in and they choose who and who not to join the said club. From his perspective the governments can prevent outsiders from crossing boarders/becoming citizens if they believe that is in the integrity of the community and to preserve its character. Walzer is not rejecting humanitarian concerns but certain nations would reach capacity if there weren't steps to follow to try and cross boarders or to become a citizen. Citizenship in Walzers view is collective self governance and so the boarders are there to keep democratic cohesion to an extent. Wolff would disagree with Walzers view because, in his eyes he believes that the government should not have control over a community and that everyone should want the good will for all. He would argue that these polices undermine the cohesion that they are trying to reach and that everyone should want to help their neighbors. Need Assignment Help?