That&#x27;s also fallacious logic. It assumes that if Brin hadn&#x27;t &#x27;invented Google&#x27;, then no one else would have come up with something similar, at about the same time. For all we know, we might have had something <i>better</i>.<p>Recall too that we live in a world where &#x27;Asiatics&#x27; (first Chinese, then Japanese, then much of Asia and the Pacific Islands) were barred for decades from immigrating to the US. Using the same logic, think of all the things we are missing, and how much better things might have been, had we not done that.<p>Don&#x27;t misunderstand me. I want freedom of movement to extend to moving across international borders. I want us to treat it more as a human right [0]. But the argument concerning Google is a retrospective economic one that sounds more like post-hoc justification, rather than one based on ethical or moral principles. [1]<p>[0] I don&#x27;t consider it a human right. I agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says &quot;Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution&quot;. I place that human right of asylum above the right to move for family, economic, or personal reasons.<p>[1] As an example of the post-hoc, almost Panglossian basis for the argument, what if we hadn&#x27;t had the Japanese internment camps. Then how would we have had George Takei as Hikaru Sulu, helmsman of the USS Enterprise, and his later influence in LGBT rights?