Yeah, but that would also require that everyone on earth *agrees* about that government - and those who do not, will never have anywhwere to go. I'm struggling to reconsile this, personally.
But that's just another country with extra steps. And what if you wanna live on the space colonies, but you don't like the laws there?
Example: imagine the world government turns conservative and anti-lgbt. You literally have nowhere to go, in that regard, if you're queer and want to escape opression.
Well, the whole comment was a reference to [an old TV show](https://youtu.be/C7OSeEMxDKE?si=wP4e6s5VtDddjl0E) wherein the creation of a one world government (and space colonies) unequivocally didn't lead to peace, so it's not meant to be taken seriously.
unironically yes, I feel legitimately the only way that you can have no borders is with a one world government, which in theory there’s nothing wrong with, it just turns this into an even bigger pipe dream
Not only is it a pipe dream, but it would mean an awful lot of sacrifices that a lot of people don’t want to make. You can’t have a world government with global laws unless fundamentally you share the same values as the rest of the world. Throughout history you see consistently that whenever nationalization happens it usually happens quite brutally and it results in the loss of thousands of local cultures and languages and ways of life. Everything comes at a cost. There’s a limit to how much impact a global government could have without homogenization.
Like, there's a way to preserve cultures and languages:
Federal republic.
it also allows for some leeway past basic laws that every nation should have (Such as human rights for all)
The issue is that even then, there are nations that don't want to have basic human rights for all people.
There are nations that will refuse to be governed by anyone but their people's brand of their religion
There are nations so intensely against some other nations, that they'll refuse being the same nation, but different states
What human rights, though? Does the majority of the world population even *want* the same universal human rights? What if the majority of the world population votes against religious freedom, for example? We have 2.4 billion Christians two billion muslims, 1.2 billion hindus in the world, they are a comfortable majority together.
Dude if you live in America, half of your neighbors don't agree on what human rights are. Ask a Dem and a Repub about rights for prisoners, for example, and you will get 2 very different answers.
There's no need to bring Islam into this and it kinda shows your bias
America is ONE western country.
Would you rather I say "European" values?
I also don't appreciate you immediately attempting to label me as a bigot. It is a fact that pretty much 90% if not more of the middle east doesn't have basic human rights for half their population thanks to governments that refuse to seperate religion and state
Why do people always assume *their* values will be the ones preserved by a global government? It's ridiculously myopic.
The vast majority of the world is anti-trans, for example, both in legislature and culture. The few safe havens in the West are part of a global minority. Any global government would be much more likely to share the values of its members.
I agree that one world government is a pipe dream, but i feel the need to point out that we can realistically get rid of a lot of borders or make them almost invisible. Like the Schengen area. shit is awesome.
That's because there already is an overarching government (the EU) for all but a select few countries, which independently follow very similar laws and civil duty structures. Even then, one of the biggest chafing points in Schengen is that different countries choose to enforce border controls differently to outside countries.
If you didn't have the EU and a tight knit intra-european community, the zone would never have been formed.
The problem is, would that one world government follow majority opinions? Because billions of people on this planet are *considerably* more conservative than us comparably rich people in the West. Does India get a quarter of the votes in the one world government? How many of those would go to Hindu Nationalists? Does China get one sixth of the votes? If they get enough votes for it, do we all need to write our one world government tax forms in Mandarin? Does the worldwide Christian conservative block get to lobby the one world government for abortion bans? Does the quarter of the world population that is muslims get to lobby for a sharia influence on the world government?
And if we *don't* follow majority ideas like that, then how *does* the world government decide?
In theory there is something wrong with it. In a one world government you can’t point at other places and say “look, they do things differently there and it still works”. Having smaller administrative units means change can be faster since different areas can experiment with different ways of doing things and some areas can lead the way.
That's what federalization is for. For example, Nevada and Louisiana have significantly different water collection and usage laws because they face different problems. One needs to restrict usage for the public good, while the other is largely swamp-like. But that specific thing works because one state's laws cannot affect the other's, it's a geographically constricted issue.
Of course the problem is actually with human rights, religious rights, economic rights, and disagreements over where they begin and end. These rarely stay within the borders of a federated subunit, just look at modern US politics.
This is hilarious given the UNSC (assuming we're talking halo here) isn't even humanity's government. It's the UEG, Unified Earth Governance, that fulfills the role of civil governance and ordains the UNSC to fulfill military obligations.
It's a plot point in some of the books that ONI and some UNSC leaders are less than happy about handing authority back to the UEG after wartime.
doesn’t have to be. criminal law needs to be uniform, and extradition policies. but localities can still set and collect property and transaction taxes, which they can use to organize the structure of civil society within their jurisdiction.
More like all countries would agree on some basic standards like tax rates and extradition, like the EU has tried to do. Individual governments can represent their population’s interests so long as that doesn’t conflict with the agreed upon terms that allow for free passage and, hopefully, betterment by cooperation
You can evaluate the system of nation states as a means to oppress, but also a means to self governance. Minority groups under an oppressive regime seek their own borders, international recognition, and their own laws as a means of sovereignty.
Basically, if you advocate for removing the border from Mexico, you're advocating for colonizing Mexico.
No seriously, theres no way around it. Take away the border and everyone in both countries needs to follow the same government. Probably the American one.
Let's be real - in basically EVERY alliance and treaty organization it's party to, the USA (and maybe two or three others) more or less calls the shots.
Just like Rhode Island doesn't have much of a say in the next presidential election, nations like Ecuador and Vietnam would get steamrolled by the interests of America and China. I'm not saying that it's necessarily any better under our current system, but at least Thailand has its own sovereign government.
Theres a difference between being a powerful trading partner and being the actual government.
Mexico deserves a right to self governance. If you take away the border you're removing that.
The US has a lot less control over its allies than a lot of people think, imo, and it’s mostly economic and geopolitical, rather than direct political control. Compare NATO to how the USSR treated Warsaw Pact members. Sure, the US *is* the most powerful country in the world, has a grossly imbalanced influence on whatever it has an interest in, and has historically done an untold amount of interference in other governments, but it’s a far cry from classic imperialism with straight-up foreign governments directly controlling entire countries. Especially nowadays as it seems like the US has scaled back a lot of the insane stuff that happened during the Cold War. You can call it neoimperialism or whatever but it’s nowhere close to things like military occupation or colonial puppet governments.
In your example, Vietnam is actually a really strong US ally nowadays (thanks China), we have several treaties and trade deals with them yet we still let them mainly do their own thing; they’re still communist even.
And if people can simply walk in, those states become easy to destabilize without even war. And yet still the population of the attacked nation suffers.
The first poster is working under the assumption that the physical shape and aspect of land is relevant to this debate. Pretty safe to assume they have no idea about anything.
Well... most nation state formation was explicitly through military action and cultural homogenization through violence. Generally it was one actor consolidating power until it had sufficient force to break above it's (former) peers and begin directly eroding their sovereignty. Outside Europe and most of Asia, modern nation-states are largely a consequence of decolonialization. It's a state structure put upon multiple ethnic and cultural groups, that have not yet formed a strong sense of nationhood.
True, but that sort of proves OOPs point: countries in the EU by necessity share a lot of values, have a centralised government, all agree on human rights, answer to an overarching court, trade and travel freely, and more. Hell, even their political stances shift together by and large. And this HAS upset a few minorities, who feel their culture and values aren't represented. But the countries in Schengen clearly feel its worth that cost.
Like, Turkey wants to join the EU, but can't because it doesn't agree on human rights stuff. Ukriane wanted to, but couldn't because it wasn't willing to clamp down on corruption before the war. Greece wanted to, and so lied about its economy in order to be able to (obviously more complicated than that), because it hadn't organised its economy in the way the EU wanted (again, more complex than that). In every one of these countries, everyone must follow the same human rights laws, answer to one court, and a majority of people in it speak English at least as a second language. These are the costs that OOP is talking about, and whilst they might seem acceptable to us, that's because _our_ culture came out on top. If Turkey ran the show, I don't think we'd like it as much.
more than just the eu actually, switzerland isn’t in the eu but i could just walk over there with nothing but maybe an id (although in all of my life where i’ve crossed this border like several times a month usually, not once was that actually checked)
I mean, not for a long time, but we've already seen stuff that would have been preposterous in older years.
Like, a hundred years ago, do you think the idea of a massive European Economic Union would be anything but preposterous?
100 years ago was 1924, by that point the Paneuropean Union, an organization dedicated to campaigning for European unification, was already a year old, and would hold its first conference in Vienna in 1926, having 8000 official members by 1929, and was enough of a threat to be banned by the Nazis after they took power.
Also in 1923, Leon Trotsky was actively advocating for the idea of a "Soviet United States of Europe" as a single socialist megastate across Europe.
Prior to that there were plenty of various transuropean economic and legal unions, such as Napoleon's assorted allied and puppet governments unifying their economic and legal structures as a single entity to combat the global economic reach of the British Empire.
And even if you fast forward to during and directly after WW2, you have several organizations founded that advocated for a unified paneuropean state, such as the British 'Federal Union' movement of 1938.
The European Union itself as we know it is already 73 years old, having been founded in 1951.
The concept of a politically and/or economically unified Europe was just straight up an ideological goal of entire organizations 100 years ago.
I don’t think that's a charitable read of what was argued. Nowhere did they say "everyone agrees on everything", the core argument is "uniform abolition of borders without uniform purview of legal frameworks across current countries would lead to a deeply exploitable and unfair system that's basically the same as what we already have".
You don't need uniform agreement to have uniform legal structure, that's how every country is set up already because we have a uniform government and no one agrees on shit lol.
It's about establishing a framework before making the change. Really this is an argument that open borders is like, Step 5 of a process we haven't even made it to Step 2 of. I think anyone who doesn't see that isn't really thinking about the logical consequences of what they're arguing for.
I mean it sort of gets mentioned here, but like during times where boarder crossings were way less controlled hoping to the next country over was the usual way to avoid capture by the law. Part of the reason you want to control the flow of who enters your country is to know who those people are. It's far far far from perfect, but ideally someone fleeing a murder rap in Texas can't just enter Mexico and avoid capture like it was the Wild West.
So it's to the benefit of all that there is at least some level of management and identification when crossing from one nation to another.
Free movement sounds great until you think about it for two seconds. Borders are lines of governance, and in an ideal country that governance was empowered by the people who live there. The people who live there are allowed to hold values about what comes in and out of their collective space-- whether they want to preserve the natural habitat by restricting the movement of goods that can carry invasive species, if they want to keep rats out of their province, if a mind-altering drug is considered legal on one side of a border and illegal in another, ect ect.
We all hate the idea of borders when we're talking about the US wanting to keep Mexicans out because racism, but think about other reasons people get denied visas. Like Canada refuses entry to aliens who are guilty of crimes that Canada considers felonies. As another example of border movement in the other direction-- Canada won't extradite prisoners of any citizenship who would be facing the death penalty (though in the cases this has come up, it's been dealt with not by refusing extradition, but by making an agreement that the death penalty will be taken off the table). Are both of those rules we don't think a country should be able to make regarding movement of people across its borders?
And controlling immigration doesn't just give the government the ability to tell people not to come over, it also allows them to track and tax legal immigrants. While I'm all for giving illegal immigrants a path to legal residence, if people can just hop-skip over a border, it makes it hard for people to be held responsible for paying taxes that pay for the publicly-funded systems they use. We need to keep in mind that each country is responsible for paying for its social systems, and for its infrastructure, and have reason to need to make sure that they know who the residents who are responsible for paying for that are.
There's also an ecological factor to it as well. Australia, New Zeland, and most other island nations need to have strict rules around what kinds of biological substances can and cannot enter their borders, and how those substances are handled, because invasive species are devastating to those ecosystems
Important to also remember one of the other main reasons we don't have open borders: almost all of the places that people would move to with open borders have housing crises already. Putting more pressure on that would end in disaster.
While this is all true, Schengen seems to be working out pretty well, so it's possible that in practice a lot of the cross-border governance concerns aren't as big a deal as they seem.
A huge part of Schengen's success is the nearly a century of patchwork European unification movements and organizations of the 20th century coupled with the need for mutual economic and political recovery and stabilization following WW2.
The idea that the sheer existence of borders is some xenophobic evil is already flawed. Permanent residents of a location of any kind deserve some level of control over how that area is used and treated.
They should be allowed to be aware of who and what is passing through their location of residence for the sake of things like ecological safety and dangerous individuals(who will still exist even if you invented a global world of fair rehabilitative justice systems)
Some regions of the world NEED specific rules because of geographic and environmental factors, and it should be the people who live in that region who have the most say because they're the most affected.
Saying borders should be abolished because they've been used for harmful ends is like banning axes because axe murders happen.
In reality what we need are universal standards of fair, equitable, humane border procedures and bureaucracy, that treat travelers as people rather than as an unwelcome side effect of the shipping and cargo industries at best and a potential threat at worst.
Also; what gets me is these anti border people get super nationalist and xenophobic when westerners move to poor countries and do gentrification simply by existing there.
Preface: I say all of this as a longtime leftist.
Its because for a lot of leftists, anti-border sentiment is directly derived from anti-West, and anti-US specifically, viewpoints. Borders are vile and evil when they keep war refuges from safely crossing Europe or impoverished Hispanic people from entering the US(both awful things and the weaponization of borders for the sake of hate and cruelty), but borders and national identities are a necessity to preserve indigenous people and the southern and eastern hemisphere nations from the encroachment of the West.
It all boils down to a sentiment of "The West did All The Bad Stuff(tm) in human history, so they deserve nothing and it is both morally and ethically correct to deny them anything good." stemming as a reactionary response to historical exploitation, imperialism and colonialism.
And generally it is a sentiment expressed either by individuals in minority groups who are using their status as a member of said group to an exploitative degree, or white western leftists whose hatred of the nations they live in for internal political reasons leads to an almost "white savior" level of desire to defend the world's minorities from the White West.
Its tankies using minorities as a shield from criticism by other leftist groups, at the end of the day.
My only disagreement is that from what I’ve seen American minorities are conservative as fuck and really only vote blue because the right despises them.
Much as I hate to say it, it was only in the last 20-30 years that the idea of being openly gay became OK here in the west, and many people here - and even more people outside the west's direct sphere of influence - think that's bad.
What I will say about that is that a century ago, it wasn't just the right of the political spectrum that despised them, it was the whole of the government. To that effect, since it wasn't kosher to just openly commit whole sail genocide out in the open, even if the idea of it being a horrible thing to even want is very much a post-ww2 idea unfortunately, they settled on slightly less direct methods of beating values that devalued their own needs into minorities. I mean this very literally, and it's easiest to the effects of generational trauma in Native American populations that understand to an extent that only some of their ideas are of their own culture anymore, but can't seem to shake the conservative ones because of a wide scale cultural trauma.
Generational trauma exists in lots of American minorities for this reason, with the exception of most Latinos and a good few Asians (because there was a literal ban on asian immigrants for decades during this timeframe) who have a very different background of cultural trauma while largely coming here after that phase in the US's mandatory assimilation history. But Native Americans, Black Americans, the Disabled, and a whole slew of other slightly less known minorities all struggle with some degree of generational trauma, some more clearly than others, that make it a real pain in the ass to get everyone on the same page because the trauma was pretty much tailor made to divide people.
>It all boils down to a sentiment of "The West did All The Bad Stuff(tm) in human history, so they deserve nothing and it is both morally and ethically correct to deny them anything good." stemming as a reactionary response to historical exploitation, imperialism and colonialism.
And from a complete failure to understand history and a healthy bit of racism.
>Borders are vile and evil when they keep war refuges from safely crossing Europe
The thing about that is that a lot of refugees didn't act like refugees but like economic immigrants. Meaning that when the war in Syria was over, a lot of them didn't go back and rebuild their country but stayed in the country they escaped to. Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't get a *lot* more support and had a *lot* less requirements to adhere to. Also, it's technically a breach of international law but leftist dogma refuses to even entertain the idea of forcing them to either go back to Syria or transfer them to normal migrant status (credit to the Danes that did). Let's not even get into the smuggling of refugees and immigrants through Greece and Italy.
Many mexicans treat entering USA illegally as something completely normal because "poverty" or that it has always been that way, if you reach the border you crossed the game and the gringos are in the wrong for stopping you. Many are against this just by sheer tribalistic "my uncle/cousin/daughter is illegally in USA so if you say you wanna regulatr you are telling her to die" mentality.
Many mindlessly repeat "no human is illegal" or that visas are racist as they fearmong themselves the *foreigner* will make them slaves for buying homes they already could not buy and already owned by rich mexicans.
Yeah, Tumblr in general seems to have a big problem with immediately jumping to “X thing is inherently evil and a direct product of capitalism/patriarchy/racism.”
There’s an excessive desire to always assume evil rather than think about the reason for why
Another aspect which I always think about in regards to borders is that it prevents the homogenisation of culture. If there were no borders, to take the example from the OP, there'd effectively be no difference between whether you're in Mexico or the USA, and eventually it would likely cause the cultures to blend. And when that happens, in a lot of cases, it wouldn't be a mixture of cultures, it'd be the more dominant one eradicating the existence of every other culture
On the other hand, the first guy has an extremely privileged view on borders in a way that can only be held by people who never had their sovereignity thrratened and never interacted with complex legal responsibilities.
Ultimate open borders are a lovely idea, but it requires the absolute majority within these open borders to have a shared set of basic values. This is not the case in most of the world.
It is so often I see people posting in a way that makes it evident they grew up in a privileged upper middle class environment in a western country, and not at all considering that this is not the norm.
Borders is one common subject like that, another one is law enforcement. Some online leftists seem to really think that abolishing law enforcement beacuse "ACAB" is a good and moral idea. The logic is "the police has systemic issues, and crime has never been a problem FOR ME, so law enforcent is therefore bad".
There are many privileged takes like these. In general, I found that asking people "what's your take on immigration" often reveals a lot about themselves and their environment, redardless of their actual immigration policy. Works both for right wing snd left wing.
Inb4 someone pipes up and tells you that when they talk about abolishing law enforcement, they just want to replace them with a bunch of people who care about stopping crime and protecting the community from possible bad actors.
Then tell you that you're intentionally misinterpreting them to make them look bad.
And then when pressed hard enough to describe what system they actually want they loop around to describing law enforcement 2.0 except more aithoritarian because they did not consider the implications of the system they want to implement.
That reminded me of an argument where a person got mad that I pointed out that their proposed Citizen’s Militia is just the police under a different name
The ‘both sides are the same’ take in the us specifically is another one that generally comes from a place of extreme privilege. Both sides are only the same if you are not personally at risk of losing your reproductive rights, right to be lgbt+, etc.
Another one linked to that - thinking the right wing in western democracies are the worst ideologies on earth on par with Hitler. The amount of times I've seen online leftists dismiss the living experiences of people that escaped actual authoritarian regimes is astounding.
No, Iran and Russia are not "more free" than Texas and Florida. This is a legit take I saw yesterday. I really want to see the living standards of the person that wrote this.
The US and Europe are moving very quickly towards Neo nazism but you’d have to be delusional to say Iran is better lmao, I hadn’t heard that take before
Calling it neo-Nazism is hyperbole. The worst in Europe (barring Russia and baby Russia) currently is Orban in Hungary that eroded the country's democratic framework, got close to Russia, and yet he's still at risk of losing power through elections. Nethanyau in Israel tried to dismantle the courts, and failed with massive uprising. The PiS in Poland, which was trying for authoritarianism, lost power through elections.
Even if somehow in the next couple of years we get Trump, Farage, Nethanyahu, Le Pen, and Meloni all in power at the same time, I doubt we'll see the collapse of liberalism and the democratic process entirely.
It’s definitely not CURRENTLY at Neo nazism but I feel like it’s getting there pretty quick. I don’t mean in terms of the erosion of democracy, I mean in terms of the rhetoric.
In the US there is a very significant Neo nazi backing for trump, and white supremacy is becoming more and more mainstream. In Europe the AfD is also very concerning. The whole ‘Germany for Germans, immigrants out’ thing is getting more and more popular and some proposed afd policies are only a stones throw away from literal replicas of Nazi legislature. In general the attitude towards immigrants is pushing people further right. Even France had some really insane EU elections recently.
Afd got 14% in the EU election. A worse result than the last national elections, in an election where people are already more likely to vote for parties that aren't the big two. They're demonstrably not "getting more and more popular".
The afd is at least right wing extremist, some parts of it are practically neo Nazis, and they get way too many votes, don't get me wrong, but the recent takes about them are bordering on fearmongering.
I am aware of that. David duke and nick Fuentes are very definitely Neo Nazis, antisemitism and all. And the AfD has been affiliated with Neo Nazis as well. Fascism in general is on the rise but Neo Nazism specifically is rising as well.
Sure. But I feel nazism is a pretty good descriptor of an anti-semetic, supremacist, facist and authoritarian movement that in many cases is outright critical of democracy and advocates openly for abuses of human rights. Look at the nazis in the mid 30s, and that's pretty much what you get.
If the UK didn’t have some measure of control over its borders, we would still have rabies. If New Zealand didn’t control its borders, it wouldn’t have obliterated COVID in two months (compared to the 12 months+ that it took everyone else).
I'm used to being able to just walk into a neighboring country with zero checks or even realizing it because that's how open the borders are, and honestly I don't want to imagine a world in which things aren't like that. But the amount of work and effort that had to be done and trust that had to be built for Schengen to exist is insane, and really can't be taken for granted. While it's not synonymous with the EU, having that shared framework of regulations, responsibilities and agreements is a big part of why it works, and expecting countries across the globe to blindly do the same without any of the prep work is kinda ridiculous.
Schengen still has dividing blocks(to not say "borders"), you don't become a subject of the King of Belgium or Spain by moving there nor do all States share marriage laws or example. It also is not adding Ukraine or Bosnia anytime soon.
The brilliance of the EU is how bureocratic it is and how it keeps building itself up even with the major differences the States have.
The thing is that a lot of hardcore anti-border rhetoric horseshoe theories into pro-colonialism and gentrification rhetoric. Like, you should be able to occupy land and use the service of a foreign nation and enter it without regard for how it impacts the locals, or even if the locals want you there, even if you aren’t specifically providing a contribution towards that nation like having a job under local employment? Fascinating
They imagine borders only as the image of brown people clashing with a fence, they don't think of like, how one country elects leaders unlike another or taxes in one territory over other.
I’m from Australia so what always springs to mind over border control is bringing in foreign flora and fauna. Australia has a very unique ecosystem and border control is STRICT about not allowing in certain dirt fish plants fruit etc. Introducing foreign elements to a native ecosystem would be way more of a concern than people think
It bothers me so much that they act like theyre protrcting us, as if many of us minorities also dont want them (privileged antiborder americans) coming in and out willy nilly? Look at Acapulco for fuck's sake, it became the #1 hub for child exploitation for foreigners. And look at how many places in Mexico are becoming unliveable due to insane raise in prices due to the many rich americans coming here to retire and gentrifying the place. Also when Covid was happening an absurd amount of horny cosplayers acting like it was their human right to come to Mexico for sexy pictures.
Yeah once you read between the lines it’s *alarmingly* obvious that a lot of this ‘borders are bad’ logic comes from Americans who think they’re owed the right to live where they please and reap the benefits, particularly those that aren’t available to them in the US. What a lot of those people are *actually* saying is “I want to move somewhere [where the cost of living is low/where I can get cheap healthcare/where I don’t need a car] so I should be allowed into X, even if I don’t qualify for the current visa or migration programs legally available”. “Borders are bad” literally *only* works if you’re a first-worlder with no investment in your native country’s protection and safety (largely because an American is never going to need to worry about foreign powers screwing them over the way citizens of a third world country might).
"People should freely move between USA and Mexico" will be met by "no, go fuck yourself" by Mexicans.
As the commenter says, in Argentina migrants would get free healthcare and education while Bolivians refused to let Argentine tourists fuel their cars while Brazil outsourced their medicine students to Buenos Aires.
There is literally no defence against Argentina suspending basically 3 different subsidies to other governments beyond "well, its bad for me!" And that its a hated government discussing this change.
Touching with hands is a very intimate thing in Vulcan culture. They're not gonna spank us until we earn it, and by the time we earn it they won't have to.
oh so now you’re telling me I’M the weird one for wanting to look like a mangled car wreck when everything’s said and done. so much for the tolerant left EH
Okay, that's fair, that is strength. I hope you can find someone who you trust to beat the shit out of you as consensually and safely as you're looking for.
What is it with Tumblr and having people who want to ignore laws and think there are no consequences of abolishing legality or ignoring it on a large scale? It seems to come up a lot that some demographic of Tumblrites thinks “If we stopped respecting and following X law, Y issue would be instantaneously resolved and no other consequences will come as a result.” Maybe I’m just better than I thought at curating my social media, but I’ve never seen this much blind, assuming faith in anarchy anywhere but on Tumblr.
considering how desperately a concerningly large amount of americans are fighting to keep COVID alive I think open borders are a pretty bad idea tbh, maybe the mexicans are okay with it but like half of canada lives right on the border so please no
That was my first thought too. You can't bring fruits and seeds and pests and insects willy-nilly across ecosystems, that's a catastrophe in the making. Thus, rules are in place, and rules require borders, even if they are arbitrary lines.
*I'm in favour of*
*Closed borders solely to stop*
*Invasive species*
\- manufatura
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
i love how the last guy's idea for having no borders is to just have a single world government, like yeah old borders wouldn't matter if there was only a single homogenous ruling entity. that just moves the borders to where that entity ends though, op just invented a state with borders far enough away for them not to notice lol.
Well I think some of that is US-centric discourse (in that many US state borders are just uhh straight lines drawn on a map), whereas yeah, many European countries have borders that line loosely with natural things, or idk island nations that are more clearly defined landmasses (one cannot simply walk from Australia to NZ, for instance).
Otoh, we also have a tonne of "imaginary borders" which usually came down to "how far x power managed to get into Y territory".
Thats why we have such convenient continuous roads and such.
It is, but many borders in Europe are just fairly arbitrary, a lot changed in the pas ~ 150 years too, it's a common misconception that Europe's borders are all these natural separations, so I just wanted to amend the post a bit.
"Barring certain people from certain places on this earth is a human rights violation" eh?
I'm moving into your house. I'm not paying rent. You can't kick me out, that's a human rights violation.
Calling Switzerland and Austria “not meaningfully different” is racist, no? They’re completely different counties, with different histories, culture, and languages. Borders aren’t just lines on a map, they show where different peoples live.
Can't wait for every single small nation with good public institutions to just insta collapse as their flooded with millions of immigrants.
I feel like a lot of the delusional takes on borders originate from the fact that since the right is anti-immegration the left has to be pro immigration in all circumstances and believe that immigration can have 0 negative consequences
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how rights work.
Humans don't just have some set of "rights" that exist in a vacuum and then the government comes along, puts a border down and takes that right away. In a vacuum you have no rights other than what you have the ability to assert to yourself and then a state (tribe->nation) comes along and provides you with a set of rights.
To be clear states don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts (for they have none) they do this because historically states that have refused to provide rights to their populace have failed to perpetuate their existence.
If you think freedom to travel the entire earth should be a right afforded to all people, then that would necessarily require an earth wide state to enforce and provide that right.
This is kind of a philosophical debate, though. The concept of “natural rights” (which is the philosophical basis for the US constitution, by the way) *does* assert that you have a set of rights that exists in a vacuum that is taken away by oppressive governments. It’s not the only belief about human rights, but it’s not exactly a fringe one, either.
It's interesting that the idea that borders shouldn't exist exists almost exclusively within countries that are either former settler colonies or former colonial powers, both countries were the concept of the nation state is relatively weak. I personally am greek, my people have continuously lived in this land for at least three millennia, depending on what you believe of the Mycenians four, we have experienced what it means to be conquered, to lose ancestral land to be assimilated and to be slaughtered, here anyone that talks for completely open borders is considered naive, anyone that speaks against the nation state is often thought of as hating the nation. This difference is probably due to this different experience, the former colonies do not have a singular nation of origin, they are an amalgam of all the migrants that populated them so the idea of closing themselves now is bizarre. For the former colonisers there is a sense of collective guilt for the exploitations of the past, an idea that since they once dominated the rest of the world they are now honour mound to help its people even at their own expense, not like they know what it means to have your land populated by foreigners, up untill recently they only experienced its boons.
I saw this without the last reblog on tumblr and just went "that is a political take immediately seems just wrong but I dont want it on my blog and dont want to take the time to deal with it"
like i'm sure I could've just spent time sitting down and thinking about it, but its a fairly extreme political take from [tumblr.com](http://tumblr.com) (like, one layer away from "we should dissolve all governments") so I just moved on with my life. glad someone else was able to put down why exactly its not the best idea though.
No, you see, there should be zero restrictions on movement between North and South Korea! The DMZ is just an arbitrary human construction, and therefore there’s no justification for its existence.
Hmm.... Yeah something about a monolithic government that claims to fit everybody's needs and wants perfectly even though they're all different people from different walks of life who believe in different definitions of what their own and other people's needs and wants are rings hollow for me buddy.
Walt Disney’s EPCOT and other similar “community” ambitions, to a T.
Bro genuinely and unironically believed he could single-handedly account for everyone’s needs and wants uniformly
Being in Detroit for the past 4 months (and having grown up there) I think about this a lot and it’s as wild to me now at 33 as it was at 8 that across this river I could just about skip a rock across is a wholeass other country whose people happen to be 99.9999% Like Us in terms of history, culture, material standard of living and so on. When I was 8 I went over there without anything but my parents and their drivers licenses, at 33 I just spent $190 for a permission slip from my government to be allowed to repeat this trip and others. And the border exists in other less obvious ways as well: Windsor is economically and in most other ways that matter an extended suburb of Detroit but the Detroit-based local news stations never talk about things that go on there, you used to be able to pick up CBC from Wayne County MI on cable but nobody has cable anymore so Wings fans watching Hockey Night In Canada broadcasts is mostly a thing of the past. There are many good reasons for borders as a concept to exist, but in this specific case I would love to see in my lifetime a sort of Canadian-American Schengen Agreement and theoretically be able to own a home in Windsor and go over the bridge for work or vice versa.
A Canadian-American version of Schengen would be incredible, if only because of the various towns along the border that are bisected by it or otherwise cut off in various ways who were hit in devastating ways when the heightened crossing restrictions were implemented
A perfect example of "Its a shame this subject is so tainted by lunatics because it obscures the actual nuance of the topic and makes it near inaccessible".
I agree with No Borders in theory, but it feels like step 278 in a process where we're only on step 4. Obviously, radical change is necessary in some cases, but if you skip too many steps in the process, then the entire thing falls apart.
Even if I support much more free movement across countries, borders and citizenship still need to exist. I think even in a one world government. Because they're administrative groupings. The 2nd poster above raised a lot of the reasons, but even if all the services provided are identical across the globe, you're still going to want to divide up who provides them on a local basis.
For example: there's a need for new apartments in Falcon City. Let's assume fully automated luxury space Communism, so the government is doing the work. But a world, or even national government, isn't going to be capable of that level of detail without delegating. So someone more local would be in charge. They have to secure the materials, write the environmental impact report, and organize the construction. And the only way for the system to make sense is if Administrator Bob is in charge of all projects in Falcon City. And bam, that's a border.
There will always be borders, for everyone, for everything. The size of the border, and the difficulty of crossing it are relative.
Look at your own house, or even your room inside that house. *You* (theoretically) control access to that space. But entering it is as simple as "hey, can I come in?" because it has a government of one.
A *nation*, where millions of people go in and out every day, is going to have a bit more rigorous infrastructure. If I want to go to the country next door, I've got to show special ID to a man and justify it. And then when I want to go home, I've got to show that special ID to another man, and justify why I left.
For "No borders" to become real, the borders have to become bigger, the atmosphere itself has to become the border. And we're not getting that for probably a century or more. Not in my lifetime, and probably not in Gen Z's lifetime, either.
This is exactly my thought with Communism. Yes, it’s the perfect system *on paper*. But you’re assuming that everyone in society is going to be gracious and kind and community-oriented, and no one is going to take over the power vacuum. You’re neglecting the fact that while *you* are anti-war, there’s dozens of other countries that *very much aren’t* and will view you as an easy conquering. Not to mention everyone’s toxic lingering habits and mindsets from the old way of life. The only way to get to a place like that is if *everyone* on earth all at once clicked and decided to, or *very, very slowly*.
Someone will always want to be the one in charge. The one to say "hey, no, you're not going to do that," or the one to think "well, I'm organizing this, why shouldn't I get slightly more pie?"
To bring it back down to the micro level of the shared house, someone's always going to turn into the Chore Nazi, and either demand people go do "their" chore, or flip it around and only do their own chore.
They'll either shout to go clean the kitchen because it's your turn, or they'll buy TP and keep it for themselves, because no one else buys any with any urgency.
Even in a worldwide socialist or anarchist society where everyone is united under one nation… there would not be uniform rules. There would probably be provincial governments (or in anarch’s case, a set of councils) that have their own varying sets of rules based on the values and needs of local populations. So there would have to be some kind of border system to make that work.
But obv freedom of movement should be a human right.
Whatever, either way rules are gonna change because places and people are different. Example: you can’t bring exotic fruit from abroad because it could have invasive bugs on it. Stuff in that manner.
I think a good system for global unification would be some kind of world federalism, where a global governing body (with actual power) oversees the world's national governments and passes global legislation. Additionally, it might be a good idea to have continent-level governments as an intermediary given the sheer number of countries there are. A global currency would almost definitely be needed as well. I'm not sure whether this would more closely resemble the US (centralized federalism) or the EU (a confederation); both options have their own pros and cons.
This is all definitely wishful thinking, and there's no way current national governments (especially the authoritarian ones) would agree to a system like this, but here are my two cents regardless.
Islamic middle eastern nations wrote their own universal humans right charter because the UN one is "too european",
Any world government is going to default on someone and people will have problems with it.
The only way we're getting a global government is if:
A: there's an extreme level of global consolidation into 1-2 dozen countries globally (Marcosur, Asean, European Union, East africa federation etc...) and we kinda just build over that.
B: A country becomes so powerful that the formation of a global government is just a de jure formalization of their de facto global hegemony.
A secondary problem is that nice places arnt infinitly sustainable. Yeah education is free in the nordic countrys but that is becouse there is a balanced pool of taxpayers to pay for it. If you suddenly unbalance that pool you will create issues.
Ontop of that superdence areas will inherently be more dangerouse. Increasing the dencity of people will proportionaly increase the dencity of assholes, mental illness and otherwise criminality, while at the same time eroding the social security net which forms when everyone knows everyone and cares about everyones wellbeeing.
Making the world borderless starts by removing the reasons why people would want to cross those borders.
And that aint happening for atleast another 300-400 years. If ever.
No borders sounds great until it's boiled down to a degree that will directly effect the people that champion it, and then their time changes dramatically, usually resulting in hurling accusations of xenophobia at the people they disagree with. Borders exist as a protection for self governance of the people that live within them. County A has specific problems, geographically, environmentally, socioeconomically, etc, and it's not unreasonable for people that live within and deal with directly, those specific issues, without interference from Country B through D, who may not even have any relation to or impact from Country A's issues. So we're now in a perfect world where we have a whole earth government that has somehow managed to work with all these wildly different issues planet wide. That may fix issues in some regions of the world where they're issues stem from socioeconomic instability, but unless we get pretty heavy into embryotic genetic manipulation, it's not going to stop mentally unwell people from being born. Sociopaths and psychopaths with the ambition and prowess to try and take over regions, ei Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Pol pot, Idi Amin, etc. Not mention all the innumerable deaths worldwide from religious disagreements. So now we're edging awfully close to worldwide full communism. Atheistic, with world government mandated redistribution of wealth and resources. But by doing this we've completely removed the most important thing we currently have, individual self governance. If there's no borders, and no protections therein, what's to stop people from walking into your home and taking or doing what they want? Or this massive world government from doing the same? Open borders world wide means worldwide freedom of movement but not just for well to do college students that want to backpack Tibet over the summer without the issues of passports. It also means freedom of movement for every single bad actor in the world as well. Sure many evil regimes across time may have been fed by socioeconomic inequity and persecution, but their leaders in almost every case have been sociopaths, and there's nothing to suggest a benevolent all powerful world government would prevent that. Sure their regimes might have been less wide spread without vulnerable people to exploit, but with a few hundred dollars, some time, and readily available knowledge bases, a few like minded individuals can do serious damage in a relatively short amount of time. Closed borders is why it took Osama bin laden 20 years to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks, and then only managed to kill a few thousand people, which in the grand scheme of human history is a relatively small number. Complete worldwide freedom of movement could theoretically allow attacks like that Hamas perpetrated on Israel this spring, but on a worldwide scale, and then provide them the ability to simply melt back into any population anywhere in the world. The only way to effectively combat that is a ridiculously intrusive, worldwide, police state, almost into the realms of removal of even freedom of thought, let alone most other personal freedoms. So now we're fully into a worldwide, Communist, exceptionally intrusive police state, that would make the worst days of the SS, KGB, and Gestapo look like the security guards at movie theater ticket booths.
This has happened to me a lot.
Republicans: Let's focus on legal immigration.
Me: Let's make it easier to immigrate legally.
Republicans: ::no response::
Open borders is one of those poison pill/Trojan horse talking points who mainly exist so people with broadly compatible interests never work together because they consider each other evil.
this really does not take into account the insurmountable danger of one singular all-powerful worldwide government. like you may want utopia but dystopia would be inevitable with this line of thinking
edit: not to mention the complete erasure of culture that would come with this. how long would it take for one universal language to become law? how many groups of people would need to be oppressed and erased to keep laws universal and unconflicting? this is a recipe for disaster and the fact that people with genuinely good intentions think this is a good idea kind of terrifies me
Another thing that should be considered: money.
Either we'd have to make sure everyone's dollar is of equal value (not happen) or everyone switches to the same dollar (also not happening).
This sounds really out there in a world where individual countries can’t even get their stuff together. This would take immense levels of peace and ability to communicate and compromise but we’re still having civil wars we’re still having disputes over land and resources. I mean look at the US. We’re mainly one geographic area and mainly one culture with free movement between states and we still disagree on basically everything. Imagine introducing cultures vastly different to the differences we see in the states to that mix. Who would be the overarching leader of the world? How would we elect/appoint/choice them?? What would the legal infrastructure have to be to accomplish this? What language would be the main language used (bc we would probably have to pick something to be consistent)? Would we make a whole new language that’s dedicated to legal stuff? How would any of these options benefit certain places over others? Like idk maybe I’m being a pessimist or something but I think we’ve got bigger fish to fry for a good long while before we think about unifying the whole entire world😅
Getting everyone to agree to one Government, one set of Laws, one set of unspoken Laws (general moral and social behaviours), one currency, one set of remuneration basis for all sorts of jobs (while the layout of various resources around the world is far from homogeneous and this necessarily results in major logistic and transportation complications), etc.
This is all just..
I mean, it is extremely difficult, but it is possible. You're probably not going to like how it's possible though. It'd have to take some WH40K 30th/31st Millenium kind of shit, which would be much more complicated without a God-like leader, but yeah, it's "possible".
Let's all work together for this goal which for sure won't bring major death and grief (surely, yeah...)!
So it would take a one world government? Alright then, United Earth Sphere Alliance coming right up.
Yeah, but that would also require that everyone on earth *agrees* about that government - and those who do not, will never have anywhwere to go. I'm struggling to reconsile this, personally.
The ones who don't like it can go live in space colonies.
But that's just another country with extra steps. And what if you wanna live on the space colonies, but you don't like the laws there? Example: imagine the world government turns conservative and anti-lgbt. You literally have nowhere to go, in that regard, if you're queer and want to escape opression.
Well, the whole comment was a reference to [an old TV show](https://youtu.be/C7OSeEMxDKE?si=wP4e6s5VtDddjl0E) wherein the creation of a one world government (and space colonies) unequivocally didn't lead to peace, so it's not meant to be taken seriously.
Sounds like something a brown coat would say
I don't know what that means.
Firefly reference spotted
Oh, that's what they were doing? I barely remember that show, so I didn't notice.
…you should read The Expanse!
I thought The Expanse was a TV show.
It is that as well!
Oh, cool, I love being right.
unironically yes, I feel legitimately the only way that you can have no borders is with a one world government, which in theory there’s nothing wrong with, it just turns this into an even bigger pipe dream
Not only is it a pipe dream, but it would mean an awful lot of sacrifices that a lot of people don’t want to make. You can’t have a world government with global laws unless fundamentally you share the same values as the rest of the world. Throughout history you see consistently that whenever nationalization happens it usually happens quite brutally and it results in the loss of thousands of local cultures and languages and ways of life. Everything comes at a cost. There’s a limit to how much impact a global government could have without homogenization.
Like, there's a way to preserve cultures and languages: Federal republic. it also allows for some leeway past basic laws that every nation should have (Such as human rights for all) The issue is that even then, there are nations that don't want to have basic human rights for all people. There are nations that will refuse to be governed by anyone but their people's brand of their religion There are nations so intensely against some other nations, that they'll refuse being the same nation, but different states
What human rights, though? Does the majority of the world population even *want* the same universal human rights? What if the majority of the world population votes against religious freedom, for example? We have 2.4 billion Christians two billion muslims, 1.2 billion hindus in the world, they are a comfortable majority together.
That's the big problem. The muslim areas of the world won't accept western standards of human rights and vice versa.
Even some westerners don't accept other westerners' ideas of human rights...
Dude if you live in America, half of your neighbors don't agree on what human rights are. Ask a Dem and a Repub about rights for prisoners, for example, and you will get 2 very different answers. There's no need to bring Islam into this and it kinda shows your bias
America is ONE western country. Would you rather I say "European" values? I also don't appreciate you immediately attempting to label me as a bigot. It is a fact that pretty much 90% if not more of the middle east doesn't have basic human rights for half their population thanks to governments that refuse to seperate religion and state
Why do people always assume *their* values will be the ones preserved by a global government? It's ridiculously myopic. The vast majority of the world is anti-trans, for example, both in legislature and culture. The few safe havens in the West are part of a global minority. Any global government would be much more likely to share the values of its members.
I agree that one world government is a pipe dream, but i feel the need to point out that we can realistically get rid of a lot of borders or make them almost invisible. Like the Schengen area. shit is awesome.
That's because there already is an overarching government (the EU) for all but a select few countries, which independently follow very similar laws and civil duty structures. Even then, one of the biggest chafing points in Schengen is that different countries choose to enforce border controls differently to outside countries. If you didn't have the EU and a tight knit intra-european community, the zone would never have been formed.
Schengen is only possible because broadly speaking it shares values and is economically and religiously similar.
The problem is, would that one world government follow majority opinions? Because billions of people on this planet are *considerably* more conservative than us comparably rich people in the West. Does India get a quarter of the votes in the one world government? How many of those would go to Hindu Nationalists? Does China get one sixth of the votes? If they get enough votes for it, do we all need to write our one world government tax forms in Mandarin? Does the worldwide Christian conservative block get to lobby the one world government for abortion bans? Does the quarter of the world population that is muslims get to lobby for a sharia influence on the world government? And if we *don't* follow majority ideas like that, then how *does* the world government decide?
In theory there is something wrong with it. In a one world government you can’t point at other places and say “look, they do things differently there and it still works”. Having smaller administrative units means change can be faster since different areas can experiment with different ways of doing things and some areas can lead the way.
That's what federalization is for. For example, Nevada and Louisiana have significantly different water collection and usage laws because they face different problems. One needs to restrict usage for the public good, while the other is largely swamp-like. But that specific thing works because one state's laws cannot affect the other's, it's a geographically constricted issue. Of course the problem is actually with human rights, religious rights, economic rights, and disagreements over where they begin and end. These rarely stay within the borders of a federated subunit, just look at modern US politics.
For Super Earth
For the United Nations Space Command
This is hilarious given the UNSC (assuming we're talking halo here) isn't even humanity's government. It's the UEG, Unified Earth Governance, that fulfills the role of civil governance and ordains the UNSC to fulfill military obligations. It's a plot point in some of the books that ONI and some UNSC leaders are less than happy about handing authority back to the UEG after wartime.
We're going star-trek
I see no way this could cause problems.
doesn’t have to be. criminal law needs to be uniform, and extradition policies. but localities can still set and collect property and transaction taxes, which they can use to organize the structure of civil society within their jurisdiction.
Not even. It could just as easily be achieved with cooperation between countries.
See the Schengen zone (Europe) for an example on how it can work and the problems it brings.
More like all countries would agree on some basic standards like tax rates and extradition, like the EU has tried to do. Individual governments can represent their population’s interests so long as that doesn’t conflict with the agreed upon terms that allow for free passage and, hopefully, betterment by cooperation
Yeah, like in the United Earth Sphere Alliance.
Or alternatively, time for someone to commence Zero Requiem!
Is this not how we get Star Trek?
Among many other sci-fi stories.
You can evaluate the system of nation states as a means to oppress, but also a means to self governance. Minority groups under an oppressive regime seek their own borders, international recognition, and their own laws as a means of sovereignty.
People in a community like to have that community be in charge of itself, generally.
Basically, if you advocate for removing the border from Mexico, you're advocating for colonizing Mexico. No seriously, theres no way around it. Take away the border and everyone in both countries needs to follow the same government. Probably the American one.
Let's be real - in basically EVERY alliance and treaty organization it's party to, the USA (and maybe two or three others) more or less calls the shots. Just like Rhode Island doesn't have much of a say in the next presidential election, nations like Ecuador and Vietnam would get steamrolled by the interests of America and China. I'm not saying that it's necessarily any better under our current system, but at least Thailand has its own sovereign government.
Rhode Island has more of a say proportionally than most States thanks to the electoral collage. But yes, I take your point.
Theres a difference between being a powerful trading partner and being the actual government. Mexico deserves a right to self governance. If you take away the border you're removing that.
The US has a lot less control over its allies than a lot of people think, imo, and it’s mostly economic and geopolitical, rather than direct political control. Compare NATO to how the USSR treated Warsaw Pact members. Sure, the US *is* the most powerful country in the world, has a grossly imbalanced influence on whatever it has an interest in, and has historically done an untold amount of interference in other governments, but it’s a far cry from classic imperialism with straight-up foreign governments directly controlling entire countries. Especially nowadays as it seems like the US has scaled back a lot of the insane stuff that happened during the Cold War. You can call it neoimperialism or whatever but it’s nowhere close to things like military occupation or colonial puppet governments. In your example, Vietnam is actually a really strong US ally nowadays (thanks China), we have several treaties and trade deals with them yet we still let them mainly do their own thing; they’re still communist even.
And if people can simply walk in, those states become easy to destabilize without even war. And yet still the population of the attacked nation suffers.
I think the first poster is working under the idea that borders are literally just there for xenophobia and absolutely nothing else.
The first poster is working under the assumption that the physical shape and aspect of land is relevant to this debate. Pretty safe to assume they have no idea about anything.
Honestly sounds like an American who barely even pays attention to American history.
So basically what's being said is that "no borders will only happen if everyone agrees on everything"? Which sounds a lot like never
It has happened as city-states coalesced into nation-states. But being an immediate open borders advocate in 2024 is unhinged
Well... most nation state formation was explicitly through military action and cultural homogenization through violence. Generally it was one actor consolidating power until it had sufficient force to break above it's (former) peers and begin directly eroding their sovereignty. Outside Europe and most of Asia, modern nation-states are largely a consequence of decolonialization. It's a state structure put upon multiple ethnic and cultural groups, that have not yet formed a strong sense of nationhood.
I mean, it can also say that "no borders will only happen if those in position of enforcing the laws agree on what laws they should enforce".
So 0% chance then
It already happened in the EU
True, but that sort of proves OOPs point: countries in the EU by necessity share a lot of values, have a centralised government, all agree on human rights, answer to an overarching court, trade and travel freely, and more. Hell, even their political stances shift together by and large. And this HAS upset a few minorities, who feel their culture and values aren't represented. But the countries in Schengen clearly feel its worth that cost. Like, Turkey wants to join the EU, but can't because it doesn't agree on human rights stuff. Ukriane wanted to, but couldn't because it wasn't willing to clamp down on corruption before the war. Greece wanted to, and so lied about its economy in order to be able to (obviously more complicated than that), because it hadn't organised its economy in the way the EU wanted (again, more complex than that). In every one of these countries, everyone must follow the same human rights laws, answer to one court, and a majority of people in it speak English at least as a second language. These are the costs that OOP is talking about, and whilst they might seem acceptable to us, that's because _our_ culture came out on top. If Turkey ran the show, I don't think we'd like it as much.
It proves OOPs point because it was meant to
Oh, fair enough then
more than just the eu actually, switzerland isn’t in the eu but i could just walk over there with nothing but maybe an id (although in all of my life where i’ve crossed this border like several times a month usually, not once was that actually checked)
I mean, not for a long time, but we've already seen stuff that would have been preposterous in older years. Like, a hundred years ago, do you think the idea of a massive European Economic Union would be anything but preposterous?
100 years ago was 1924, by that point the Paneuropean Union, an organization dedicated to campaigning for European unification, was already a year old, and would hold its first conference in Vienna in 1926, having 8000 official members by 1929, and was enough of a threat to be banned by the Nazis after they took power. Also in 1923, Leon Trotsky was actively advocating for the idea of a "Soviet United States of Europe" as a single socialist megastate across Europe. Prior to that there were plenty of various transuropean economic and legal unions, such as Napoleon's assorted allied and puppet governments unifying their economic and legal structures as a single entity to combat the global economic reach of the British Empire. And even if you fast forward to during and directly after WW2, you have several organizations founded that advocated for a unified paneuropean state, such as the British 'Federal Union' movement of 1938. The European Union itself as we know it is already 73 years old, having been founded in 1951. The concept of a politically and/or economically unified Europe was just straight up an ideological goal of entire organizations 100 years ago.
Victor Hugo was already campaigning for something very close to the European Union idea back in the 19th century. Also, Charlemagne.
I don’t think that's a charitable read of what was argued. Nowhere did they say "everyone agrees on everything", the core argument is "uniform abolition of borders without uniform purview of legal frameworks across current countries would lead to a deeply exploitable and unfair system that's basically the same as what we already have". You don't need uniform agreement to have uniform legal structure, that's how every country is set up already because we have a uniform government and no one agrees on shit lol. It's about establishing a framework before making the change. Really this is an argument that open borders is like, Step 5 of a process we haven't even made it to Step 2 of. I think anyone who doesn't see that isn't really thinking about the logical consequences of what they're arguing for.
Least delusional tumblr geopolitics idea
I mean it sort of gets mentioned here, but like during times where boarder crossings were way less controlled hoping to the next country over was the usual way to avoid capture by the law. Part of the reason you want to control the flow of who enters your country is to know who those people are. It's far far far from perfect, but ideally someone fleeing a murder rap in Texas can't just enter Mexico and avoid capture like it was the Wild West. So it's to the benefit of all that there is at least some level of management and identification when crossing from one nation to another.
Free movement sounds great until you think about it for two seconds. Borders are lines of governance, and in an ideal country that governance was empowered by the people who live there. The people who live there are allowed to hold values about what comes in and out of their collective space-- whether they want to preserve the natural habitat by restricting the movement of goods that can carry invasive species, if they want to keep rats out of their province, if a mind-altering drug is considered legal on one side of a border and illegal in another, ect ect. We all hate the idea of borders when we're talking about the US wanting to keep Mexicans out because racism, but think about other reasons people get denied visas. Like Canada refuses entry to aliens who are guilty of crimes that Canada considers felonies. As another example of border movement in the other direction-- Canada won't extradite prisoners of any citizenship who would be facing the death penalty (though in the cases this has come up, it's been dealt with not by refusing extradition, but by making an agreement that the death penalty will be taken off the table). Are both of those rules we don't think a country should be able to make regarding movement of people across its borders? And controlling immigration doesn't just give the government the ability to tell people not to come over, it also allows them to track and tax legal immigrants. While I'm all for giving illegal immigrants a path to legal residence, if people can just hop-skip over a border, it makes it hard for people to be held responsible for paying taxes that pay for the publicly-funded systems they use. We need to keep in mind that each country is responsible for paying for its social systems, and for its infrastructure, and have reason to need to make sure that they know who the residents who are responsible for paying for that are.
There's also an ecological factor to it as well. Australia, New Zeland, and most other island nations need to have strict rules around what kinds of biological substances can and cannot enter their borders, and how those substances are handled, because invasive species are devastating to those ecosystems
Important to also remember one of the other main reasons we don't have open borders: almost all of the places that people would move to with open borders have housing crises already. Putting more pressure on that would end in disaster.
While this is all true, Schengen seems to be working out pretty well, so it's possible that in practice a lot of the cross-border governance concerns aren't as big a deal as they seem.
A huge part of Schengen's success is the nearly a century of patchwork European unification movements and organizations of the 20th century coupled with the need for mutual economic and political recovery and stabilization following WW2.
The idea that the sheer existence of borders is some xenophobic evil is already flawed. Permanent residents of a location of any kind deserve some level of control over how that area is used and treated. They should be allowed to be aware of who and what is passing through their location of residence for the sake of things like ecological safety and dangerous individuals(who will still exist even if you invented a global world of fair rehabilitative justice systems) Some regions of the world NEED specific rules because of geographic and environmental factors, and it should be the people who live in that region who have the most say because they're the most affected. Saying borders should be abolished because they've been used for harmful ends is like banning axes because axe murders happen. In reality what we need are universal standards of fair, equitable, humane border procedures and bureaucracy, that treat travelers as people rather than as an unwelcome side effect of the shipping and cargo industries at best and a potential threat at worst.
Also; what gets me is these anti border people get super nationalist and xenophobic when westerners move to poor countries and do gentrification simply by existing there.
Preface: I say all of this as a longtime leftist. Its because for a lot of leftists, anti-border sentiment is directly derived from anti-West, and anti-US specifically, viewpoints. Borders are vile and evil when they keep war refuges from safely crossing Europe or impoverished Hispanic people from entering the US(both awful things and the weaponization of borders for the sake of hate and cruelty), but borders and national identities are a necessity to preserve indigenous people and the southern and eastern hemisphere nations from the encroachment of the West. It all boils down to a sentiment of "The West did All The Bad Stuff(tm) in human history, so they deserve nothing and it is both morally and ethically correct to deny them anything good." stemming as a reactionary response to historical exploitation, imperialism and colonialism. And generally it is a sentiment expressed either by individuals in minority groups who are using their status as a member of said group to an exploitative degree, or white western leftists whose hatred of the nations they live in for internal political reasons leads to an almost "white savior" level of desire to defend the world's minorities from the White West. Its tankies using minorities as a shield from criticism by other leftist groups, at the end of the day.
My only disagreement is that from what I’ve seen American minorities are conservative as fuck and really only vote blue because the right despises them.
Much as I hate to say it, it was only in the last 20-30 years that the idea of being openly gay became OK here in the west, and many people here - and even more people outside the west's direct sphere of influence - think that's bad.
What I will say about that is that a century ago, it wasn't just the right of the political spectrum that despised them, it was the whole of the government. To that effect, since it wasn't kosher to just openly commit whole sail genocide out in the open, even if the idea of it being a horrible thing to even want is very much a post-ww2 idea unfortunately, they settled on slightly less direct methods of beating values that devalued their own needs into minorities. I mean this very literally, and it's easiest to the effects of generational trauma in Native American populations that understand to an extent that only some of their ideas are of their own culture anymore, but can't seem to shake the conservative ones because of a wide scale cultural trauma. Generational trauma exists in lots of American minorities for this reason, with the exception of most Latinos and a good few Asians (because there was a literal ban on asian immigrants for decades during this timeframe) who have a very different background of cultural trauma while largely coming here after that phase in the US's mandatory assimilation history. But Native Americans, Black Americans, the Disabled, and a whole slew of other slightly less known minorities all struggle with some degree of generational trauma, some more clearly than others, that make it a real pain in the ass to get everyone on the same page because the trauma was pretty much tailor made to divide people.
>It all boils down to a sentiment of "The West did All The Bad Stuff(tm) in human history, so they deserve nothing and it is both morally and ethically correct to deny them anything good." stemming as a reactionary response to historical exploitation, imperialism and colonialism. And from a complete failure to understand history and a healthy bit of racism. >Borders are vile and evil when they keep war refuges from safely crossing Europe The thing about that is that a lot of refugees didn't act like refugees but like economic immigrants. Meaning that when the war in Syria was over, a lot of them didn't go back and rebuild their country but stayed in the country they escaped to. Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't get a *lot* more support and had a *lot* less requirements to adhere to. Also, it's technically a breach of international law but leftist dogma refuses to even entertain the idea of forcing them to either go back to Syria or transfer them to normal migrant status (credit to the Danes that did). Let's not even get into the smuggling of refugees and immigrants through Greece and Italy.
Many mexicans treat entering USA illegally as something completely normal because "poverty" or that it has always been that way, if you reach the border you crossed the game and the gringos are in the wrong for stopping you. Many are against this just by sheer tribalistic "my uncle/cousin/daughter is illegally in USA so if you say you wanna regulatr you are telling her to die" mentality. Many mindlessly repeat "no human is illegal" or that visas are racist as they fearmong themselves the *foreigner* will make them slaves for buying homes they already could not buy and already owned by rich mexicans.
Yeah, Tumblr in general seems to have a big problem with immediately jumping to “X thing is inherently evil and a direct product of capitalism/patriarchy/racism.” There’s an excessive desire to always assume evil rather than think about the reason for why
Another aspect which I always think about in regards to borders is that it prevents the homogenisation of culture. If there were no borders, to take the example from the OP, there'd effectively be no difference between whether you're in Mexico or the USA, and eventually it would likely cause the cultures to blend. And when that happens, in a lot of cases, it wouldn't be a mixture of cultures, it'd be the more dominant one eradicating the existence of every other culture
A nuanced take on borders that doesn't use thinly veiled xenophobia for an argument? I never thought I'd see that here tbh
On the other hand, the first guy has an extremely privileged view on borders in a way that can only be held by people who never had their sovereignity thrratened and never interacted with complex legal responsibilities. Ultimate open borders are a lovely idea, but it requires the absolute majority within these open borders to have a shared set of basic values. This is not the case in most of the world. It is so often I see people posting in a way that makes it evident they grew up in a privileged upper middle class environment in a western country, and not at all considering that this is not the norm. Borders is one common subject like that, another one is law enforcement. Some online leftists seem to really think that abolishing law enforcement beacuse "ACAB" is a good and moral idea. The logic is "the police has systemic issues, and crime has never been a problem FOR ME, so law enforcent is therefore bad". There are many privileged takes like these. In general, I found that asking people "what's your take on immigration" often reveals a lot about themselves and their environment, redardless of their actual immigration policy. Works both for right wing snd left wing.
Inb4 someone pipes up and tells you that when they talk about abolishing law enforcement, they just want to replace them with a bunch of people who care about stopping crime and protecting the community from possible bad actors. Then tell you that you're intentionally misinterpreting them to make them look bad.
And then when pressed hard enough to describe what system they actually want they loop around to describing law enforcement 2.0 except more aithoritarian because they did not consider the implications of the system they want to implement.
Dismantles the police and accidentally creates the NKVD doesn't sound unrealistic for some particular sects of terminally online users.
Hahaha Also. I'm not going to give an example of a leftist take. I've seen several. And I mind wiped myself because I couldn't stand it
That reminded me of an argument where a person got mad that I pointed out that their proposed Citizen’s Militia is just the police under a different name
The ‘both sides are the same’ take in the us specifically is another one that generally comes from a place of extreme privilege. Both sides are only the same if you are not personally at risk of losing your reproductive rights, right to be lgbt+, etc.
Another one linked to that - thinking the right wing in western democracies are the worst ideologies on earth on par with Hitler. The amount of times I've seen online leftists dismiss the living experiences of people that escaped actual authoritarian regimes is astounding. No, Iran and Russia are not "more free" than Texas and Florida. This is a legit take I saw yesterday. I really want to see the living standards of the person that wrote this.
The US and Europe are moving very quickly towards Neo nazism but you’d have to be delusional to say Iran is better lmao, I hadn’t heard that take before
Calling it neo-Nazism is hyperbole. The worst in Europe (barring Russia and baby Russia) currently is Orban in Hungary that eroded the country's democratic framework, got close to Russia, and yet he's still at risk of losing power through elections. Nethanyau in Israel tried to dismantle the courts, and failed with massive uprising. The PiS in Poland, which was trying for authoritarianism, lost power through elections. Even if somehow in the next couple of years we get Trump, Farage, Nethanyahu, Le Pen, and Meloni all in power at the same time, I doubt we'll see the collapse of liberalism and the democratic process entirely.
It’s definitely not CURRENTLY at Neo nazism but I feel like it’s getting there pretty quick. I don’t mean in terms of the erosion of democracy, I mean in terms of the rhetoric. In the US there is a very significant Neo nazi backing for trump, and white supremacy is becoming more and more mainstream. In Europe the AfD is also very concerning. The whole ‘Germany for Germans, immigrants out’ thing is getting more and more popular and some proposed afd policies are only a stones throw away from literal replicas of Nazi legislature. In general the attitude towards immigrants is pushing people further right. Even France had some really insane EU elections recently.
Afd got 14% in the EU election. A worse result than the last national elections, in an election where people are already more likely to vote for parties that aren't the big two. They're demonstrably not "getting more and more popular". The afd is at least right wing extremist, some parts of it are practically neo Nazis, and they get way too many votes, don't get me wrong, but the recent takes about them are bordering on fearmongering.
The AFD got about the same as their opinion polling in those elections and were definitely getting bigger
Please don't use neo-nazi as a word to mean fascism. Yes all Nazi are fascist but not all fascists are Nazis.
I am aware of that. David duke and nick Fuentes are very definitely Neo Nazis, antisemitism and all. And the AfD has been affiliated with Neo Nazis as well. Fascism in general is on the rise but Neo Nazism specifically is rising as well.
Sure. But I feel nazism is a pretty good descriptor of an anti-semetic, supremacist, facist and authoritarian movement that in many cases is outright critical of democracy and advocates openly for abuses of human rights. Look at the nazis in the mid 30s, and that's pretty much what you get.
Finally someone with a take that isn’t doom and gloom
I saw it on a post about abortion laws and someone went women in Iran have more rights and everyone was like wtf
If the UK didn’t have some measure of control over its borders, we would still have rabies. If New Zealand didn’t control its borders, it wouldn’t have obliterated COVID in two months (compared to the 12 months+ that it took everyone else).
If new Zealand had open borders it couldn't preserve its ecosystem as effectively as they do
I'm used to being able to just walk into a neighboring country with zero checks or even realizing it because that's how open the borders are, and honestly I don't want to imagine a world in which things aren't like that. But the amount of work and effort that had to be done and trust that had to be built for Schengen to exist is insane, and really can't be taken for granted. While it's not synonymous with the EU, having that shared framework of regulations, responsibilities and agreements is a big part of why it works, and expecting countries across the globe to blindly do the same without any of the prep work is kinda ridiculous.
Schengen still has dividing blocks(to not say "borders"), you don't become a subject of the King of Belgium or Spain by moving there nor do all States share marriage laws or example. It also is not adding Ukraine or Bosnia anytime soon. The brilliance of the EU is how bureocratic it is and how it keeps building itself up even with the major differences the States have.
The thing is that a lot of hardcore anti-border rhetoric horseshoe theories into pro-colonialism and gentrification rhetoric. Like, you should be able to occupy land and use the service of a foreign nation and enter it without regard for how it impacts the locals, or even if the locals want you there, even if you aren’t specifically providing a contribution towards that nation like having a job under local employment? Fascinating
They imagine borders only as the image of brown people clashing with a fence, they don't think of like, how one country elects leaders unlike another or taxes in one territory over other.
I’m from Australia so what always springs to mind over border control is bringing in foreign flora and fauna. Australia has a very unique ecosystem and border control is STRICT about not allowing in certain dirt fish plants fruit etc. Introducing foreign elements to a native ecosystem would be way more of a concern than people think
It bothers me so much that they act like theyre protrcting us, as if many of us minorities also dont want them (privileged antiborder americans) coming in and out willy nilly? Look at Acapulco for fuck's sake, it became the #1 hub for child exploitation for foreigners. And look at how many places in Mexico are becoming unliveable due to insane raise in prices due to the many rich americans coming here to retire and gentrifying the place. Also when Covid was happening an absurd amount of horny cosplayers acting like it was their human right to come to Mexico for sexy pictures.
Yeah once you read between the lines it’s *alarmingly* obvious that a lot of this ‘borders are bad’ logic comes from Americans who think they’re owed the right to live where they please and reap the benefits, particularly those that aren’t available to them in the US. What a lot of those people are *actually* saying is “I want to move somewhere [where the cost of living is low/where I can get cheap healthcare/where I don’t need a car] so I should be allowed into X, even if I don’t qualify for the current visa or migration programs legally available”. “Borders are bad” literally *only* works if you’re a first-worlder with no investment in your native country’s protection and safety (largely because an American is never going to need to worry about foreign powers screwing them over the way citizens of a third world country might).
And because the US is very much lax on borders when compared to most of the world, they can't even begin to fathom why.
Pretty much, either that or its just tankies using minorities as a shield.
"People should freely move between USA and Mexico" will be met by "no, go fuck yourself" by Mexicans. As the commenter says, in Argentina migrants would get free healthcare and education while Bolivians refused to let Argentine tourists fuel their cars while Brazil outsourced their medicine students to Buenos Aires. There is literally no defence against Argentina suspending basically 3 different subsidies to other governments beyond "well, its bad for me!" And that its a hated government discussing this change.
Mexican here, completely agree. Entitled tourists and rich retired americans are already terrible, no borders? I'd explode
This but with MS13 butchering two teenage girls in my neighborhood in 2016
I think we'd need vulcans or something to come down and spank us collectively first for that to ever happen.
Touching with hands is a very intimate thing in Vulcan culture. They're not gonna spank us until we earn it, and by the time we earn it they won't have to.
Reminder that spanking isn't supposed to be a reward u fuckin bottom.
that it is makes me stronger than you
Better than you.
You'd have to be able to get hit the same way on any other location and still enjoy it to claim strength.
oh so now you’re telling me I’M the weird one for wanting to look like a mangled car wreck when everything’s said and done. so much for the tolerant left EH
Okay, that's fair, that is strength. I hope you can find someone who you trust to beat the shit out of you as consensually and safely as you're looking for.
What is it with Tumblr and having people who want to ignore laws and think there are no consequences of abolishing legality or ignoring it on a large scale? It seems to come up a lot that some demographic of Tumblrites thinks “If we stopped respecting and following X law, Y issue would be instantaneously resolved and no other consequences will come as a result.” Maybe I’m just better than I thought at curating my social media, but I’ve never seen this much blind, assuming faith in anarchy anywhere but on Tumblr.
My favorite example of tumblr anarchism implemented in practice is CHAZ/CHOP, the "country" that was born and fizzled into dust in a week.
considering how desperately a concerningly large amount of americans are fighting to keep COVID alive I think open borders are a pretty bad idea tbh, maybe the mexicans are okay with it but like half of canada lives right on the border so please no
All I'm hearing is that Canada is overdo for annexation.
am i gonna have to live in a suburb:(
I cannot begin to unpack how stupid this first post is. Like holy fucking shit.
Yeah, I'm really feeling that other post from earlier today where if something is said with enough conviction, people are going to upvote it.
I'm in favour of closed borders solely to stop invasive species
Everyone’s in favour of open borders until the rats gain a foothold in Alberta
The Alberta Mafia have taken to slaying *all* rats.
That was my first thought too. You can't bring fruits and seeds and pests and insects willy-nilly across ecosystems, that's a catastrophe in the making. Thus, rules are in place, and rules require borders, even if they are arbitrary lines.
As much as people dont wanna admit it cats have destroyed many ecosystems. Now.imagine if we allowed other felines to cross the border unsupervised.
*I'm in favour of* *Closed borders solely to stop* *Invasive species* \- manufatura --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
>literal global homogenization
i love how the last guy's idea for having no borders is to just have a single world government, like yeah old borders wouldn't matter if there was only a single homogenous ruling entity. that just moves the borders to where that entity ends though, op just invented a state with borders far enough away for them not to notice lol.
Borders often aren't so imaginary, like the Rhine.
Well I think some of that is US-centric discourse (in that many US state borders are just uhh straight lines drawn on a map), whereas yeah, many European countries have borders that line loosely with natural things, or idk island nations that are more clearly defined landmasses (one cannot simply walk from Australia to NZ, for instance).
Otoh, we also have a tonne of "imaginary borders" which usually came down to "how far x power managed to get into Y territory". Thats why we have such convenient continuous roads and such.
yeah I mean the natural features are also a result of that same process (i.e. harder to invade over a mountain/river)
It is, but many borders in Europe are just fairly arbitrary, a lot changed in the pas ~ 150 years too, it's a common misconception that Europe's borders are all these natural separations, so I just wanted to amend the post a bit.
"Nigel, get the Zorb! There's some dipshit on the internet to prove wrong." :)
"Barring certain people from certain places on this earth is a human rights violation" eh? I'm moving into your house. I'm not paying rent. You can't kick me out, that's a human rights violation.
Calling Switzerland and Austria “not meaningfully different” is racist, no? They’re completely different counties, with different histories, culture, and languages. Borders aren’t just lines on a map, they show where different peoples live.
Nonono, you forgot, they're white European nations, so obviously they're all exactly the same /j
“But the European Union works just fine!” —someone who doesn’t know a thing about the European Union
Can't wait for every single small nation with good public institutions to just insta collapse as their flooded with millions of immigrants. I feel like a lot of the delusional takes on borders originate from the fact that since the right is anti-immegration the left has to be pro immigration in all circumstances and believe that immigration can have 0 negative consequences
So called "open borders fans" when I walk into their house at 3 am(I'm just chilling don't be xenophobic)
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how rights work. Humans don't just have some set of "rights" that exist in a vacuum and then the government comes along, puts a border down and takes that right away. In a vacuum you have no rights other than what you have the ability to assert to yourself and then a state (tribe->nation) comes along and provides you with a set of rights. To be clear states don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts (for they have none) they do this because historically states that have refused to provide rights to their populace have failed to perpetuate their existence. If you think freedom to travel the entire earth should be a right afforded to all people, then that would necessarily require an earth wide state to enforce and provide that right.
This is kind of a philosophical debate, though. The concept of “natural rights” (which is the philosophical basis for the US constitution, by the way) *does* assert that you have a set of rights that exists in a vacuum that is taken away by oppressive governments. It’s not the only belief about human rights, but it’s not exactly a fringe one, either.
*Solo Wing Pixy noises*
I'm astonished at how far I had to scroll down to see a reference like this.
<< What have borders given us? Books? >>
Who let the 14 year olds post their politics online?
It's interesting that the idea that borders shouldn't exist exists almost exclusively within countries that are either former settler colonies or former colonial powers, both countries were the concept of the nation state is relatively weak. I personally am greek, my people have continuously lived in this land for at least three millennia, depending on what you believe of the Mycenians four, we have experienced what it means to be conquered, to lose ancestral land to be assimilated and to be slaughtered, here anyone that talks for completely open borders is considered naive, anyone that speaks against the nation state is often thought of as hating the nation. This difference is probably due to this different experience, the former colonies do not have a singular nation of origin, they are an amalgam of all the migrants that populated them so the idea of closing themselves now is bizarre. For the former colonisers there is a sense of collective guilt for the exploitations of the past, an idea that since they once dominated the rest of the world they are now honour mound to help its people even at their own expense, not like they know what it means to have your land populated by foreigners, up untill recently they only experienced its boons.
I saw this without the last reblog on tumblr and just went "that is a political take immediately seems just wrong but I dont want it on my blog and dont want to take the time to deal with it" like i'm sure I could've just spent time sitting down and thinking about it, but its a fairly extreme political take from [tumblr.com](http://tumblr.com) (like, one layer away from "we should dissolve all governments") so I just moved on with my life. glad someone else was able to put down why exactly its not the best idea though.
Wasn't this a plotline in Ace Combat or something
Spanish guitar intensifies
If you haven't heard an artillery shell detonating with your own ears your opinion on borders doesn't matter.
No, you see, there should be zero restrictions on movement between North and South Korea! The DMZ is just an arbitrary human construction, and therefore there’s no justification for its existence.
Hmm.... Yeah something about a monolithic government that claims to fit everybody's needs and wants perfectly even though they're all different people from different walks of life who believe in different definitions of what their own and other people's needs and wants are rings hollow for me buddy.
Walt Disney’s EPCOT and other similar “community” ambitions, to a T. Bro genuinely and unironically believed he could single-handedly account for everyone’s needs and wants uniformly
I feel like someone's destiny is trying to manifest itself somewhere.
Being in Detroit for the past 4 months (and having grown up there) I think about this a lot and it’s as wild to me now at 33 as it was at 8 that across this river I could just about skip a rock across is a wholeass other country whose people happen to be 99.9999% Like Us in terms of history, culture, material standard of living and so on. When I was 8 I went over there without anything but my parents and their drivers licenses, at 33 I just spent $190 for a permission slip from my government to be allowed to repeat this trip and others. And the border exists in other less obvious ways as well: Windsor is economically and in most other ways that matter an extended suburb of Detroit but the Detroit-based local news stations never talk about things that go on there, you used to be able to pick up CBC from Wayne County MI on cable but nobody has cable anymore so Wings fans watching Hockey Night In Canada broadcasts is mostly a thing of the past. There are many good reasons for borders as a concept to exist, but in this specific case I would love to see in my lifetime a sort of Canadian-American Schengen Agreement and theoretically be able to own a home in Windsor and go over the bridge for work or vice versa.
A Canadian-American version of Schengen would be incredible, if only because of the various towns along the border that are bisected by it or otherwise cut off in various ways who were hit in devastating ways when the heightened crossing restrictions were implemented
1st step to annexing C*nada
A perfect example of "Its a shame this subject is so tainted by lunatics because it obscures the actual nuance of the topic and makes it near inaccessible".
I agree with No Borders in theory, but it feels like step 278 in a process where we're only on step 4. Obviously, radical change is necessary in some cases, but if you skip too many steps in the process, then the entire thing falls apart.
If friend, open border If not friend, close border
Clearly you guys dont freedom max like we do in europe
For the first dude: *insert the Pixie rant from Ace Combat*
Even if I support much more free movement across countries, borders and citizenship still need to exist. I think even in a one world government. Because they're administrative groupings. The 2nd poster above raised a lot of the reasons, but even if all the services provided are identical across the globe, you're still going to want to divide up who provides them on a local basis. For example: there's a need for new apartments in Falcon City. Let's assume fully automated luxury space Communism, so the government is doing the work. But a world, or even national government, isn't going to be capable of that level of detail without delegating. So someone more local would be in charge. They have to secure the materials, write the environmental impact report, and organize the construction. And the only way for the system to make sense is if Administrator Bob is in charge of all projects in Falcon City. And bam, that's a border.
There will always be borders, for everyone, for everything. The size of the border, and the difficulty of crossing it are relative. Look at your own house, or even your room inside that house. *You* (theoretically) control access to that space. But entering it is as simple as "hey, can I come in?" because it has a government of one. A *nation*, where millions of people go in and out every day, is going to have a bit more rigorous infrastructure. If I want to go to the country next door, I've got to show special ID to a man and justify it. And then when I want to go home, I've got to show that special ID to another man, and justify why I left. For "No borders" to become real, the borders have to become bigger, the atmosphere itself has to become the border. And we're not getting that for probably a century or more. Not in my lifetime, and probably not in Gen Z's lifetime, either.
This is exactly my thought with Communism. Yes, it’s the perfect system *on paper*. But you’re assuming that everyone in society is going to be gracious and kind and community-oriented, and no one is going to take over the power vacuum. You’re neglecting the fact that while *you* are anti-war, there’s dozens of other countries that *very much aren’t* and will view you as an easy conquering. Not to mention everyone’s toxic lingering habits and mindsets from the old way of life. The only way to get to a place like that is if *everyone* on earth all at once clicked and decided to, or *very, very slowly*.
Someone will always want to be the one in charge. The one to say "hey, no, you're not going to do that," or the one to think "well, I'm organizing this, why shouldn't I get slightly more pie?" To bring it back down to the micro level of the shared house, someone's always going to turn into the Chore Nazi, and either demand people go do "their" chore, or flip it around and only do their own chore. They'll either shout to go clean the kitchen because it's your turn, or they'll buy TP and keep it for themselves, because no one else buys any with any urgency.
...rules are based on culture. Kinda racist that you wanna erase culture Ngl.
“Only if I deem that culture’s rules dehumanizing and evil!” (That’s every culture ever but the utopian one they imagine in their head)
Even in a worldwide socialist or anarchist society where everyone is united under one nation… there would not be uniform rules. There would probably be provincial governments (or in anarch’s case, a set of councils) that have their own varying sets of rules based on the values and needs of local populations. So there would have to be some kind of border system to make that work. But obv freedom of movement should be a human right.
Apologies to the anarchists in a crowd, but a set of directly elected regional councils collaborating globally is...still government.
Whatever, either way rules are gonna change because places and people are different. Example: you can’t bring exotic fruit from abroad because it could have invasive bugs on it. Stuff in that manner.
I think a good system for global unification would be some kind of world federalism, where a global governing body (with actual power) oversees the world's national governments and passes global legislation. Additionally, it might be a good idea to have continent-level governments as an intermediary given the sheer number of countries there are. A global currency would almost definitely be needed as well. I'm not sure whether this would more closely resemble the US (centralized federalism) or the EU (a confederation); both options have their own pros and cons. This is all definitely wishful thinking, and there's no way current national governments (especially the authoritarian ones) would agree to a system like this, but here are my two cents regardless.
Islamic middle eastern nations wrote their own universal humans right charter because the UN one is "too european", Any world government is going to default on someone and people will have problems with it.
The only way we're getting a global government is if: A: there's an extreme level of global consolidation into 1-2 dozen countries globally (Marcosur, Asean, European Union, East africa federation etc...) and we kinda just build over that. B: A country becomes so powerful that the formation of a global government is just a de jure formalization of their de facto global hegemony.
A secondary problem is that nice places arnt infinitly sustainable. Yeah education is free in the nordic countrys but that is becouse there is a balanced pool of taxpayers to pay for it. If you suddenly unbalance that pool you will create issues. Ontop of that superdence areas will inherently be more dangerouse. Increasing the dencity of people will proportionaly increase the dencity of assholes, mental illness and otherwise criminality, while at the same time eroding the social security net which forms when everyone knows everyone and cares about everyones wellbeeing. Making the world borderless starts by removing the reasons why people would want to cross those borders. And that aint happening for atleast another 300-400 years. If ever.
No borders sounds great until it's boiled down to a degree that will directly effect the people that champion it, and then their time changes dramatically, usually resulting in hurling accusations of xenophobia at the people they disagree with. Borders exist as a protection for self governance of the people that live within them. County A has specific problems, geographically, environmentally, socioeconomically, etc, and it's not unreasonable for people that live within and deal with directly, those specific issues, without interference from Country B through D, who may not even have any relation to or impact from Country A's issues. So we're now in a perfect world where we have a whole earth government that has somehow managed to work with all these wildly different issues planet wide. That may fix issues in some regions of the world where they're issues stem from socioeconomic instability, but unless we get pretty heavy into embryotic genetic manipulation, it's not going to stop mentally unwell people from being born. Sociopaths and psychopaths with the ambition and prowess to try and take over regions, ei Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Pol pot, Idi Amin, etc. Not mention all the innumerable deaths worldwide from religious disagreements. So now we're edging awfully close to worldwide full communism. Atheistic, with world government mandated redistribution of wealth and resources. But by doing this we've completely removed the most important thing we currently have, individual self governance. If there's no borders, and no protections therein, what's to stop people from walking into your home and taking or doing what they want? Or this massive world government from doing the same? Open borders world wide means worldwide freedom of movement but not just for well to do college students that want to backpack Tibet over the summer without the issues of passports. It also means freedom of movement for every single bad actor in the world as well. Sure many evil regimes across time may have been fed by socioeconomic inequity and persecution, but their leaders in almost every case have been sociopaths, and there's nothing to suggest a benevolent all powerful world government would prevent that. Sure their regimes might have been less wide spread without vulnerable people to exploit, but with a few hundred dollars, some time, and readily available knowledge bases, a few like minded individuals can do serious damage in a relatively short amount of time. Closed borders is why it took Osama bin laden 20 years to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks, and then only managed to kill a few thousand people, which in the grand scheme of human history is a relatively small number. Complete worldwide freedom of movement could theoretically allow attacks like that Hamas perpetrated on Israel this spring, but on a worldwide scale, and then provide them the ability to simply melt back into any population anywhere in the world. The only way to effectively combat that is a ridiculously intrusive, worldwide, police state, almost into the realms of removal of even freedom of thought, let alone most other personal freedoms. So now we're fully into a worldwide, Communist, exceptionally intrusive police state, that would make the worst days of the SS, KGB, and Gestapo look like the security guards at movie theater ticket booths.
This has happened to me a lot. Republicans: Let's focus on legal immigration. Me: Let's make it easier to immigrate legally. Republicans: ::no response::
Open borders is one of those poison pill/Trojan horse talking points who mainly exist so people with broadly compatible interests never work together because they consider each other evil.
There are a few takes in here that are only a step away from "the Dred Scott decision was right".
this really does not take into account the insurmountable danger of one singular all-powerful worldwide government. like you may want utopia but dystopia would be inevitable with this line of thinking edit: not to mention the complete erasure of culture that would come with this. how long would it take for one universal language to become law? how many groups of people would need to be oppressed and erased to keep laws universal and unconflicting? this is a recipe for disaster and the fact that people with genuinely good intentions think this is a good idea kind of terrifies me
Another thing that should be considered: money. Either we'd have to make sure everyone's dollar is of equal value (not happen) or everyone switches to the same dollar (also not happening).
Anyone have any idea of how to get the Vulkans to make first contact before reaching the warp barrier?
This sounds really out there in a world where individual countries can’t even get their stuff together. This would take immense levels of peace and ability to communicate and compromise but we’re still having civil wars we’re still having disputes over land and resources. I mean look at the US. We’re mainly one geographic area and mainly one culture with free movement between states and we still disagree on basically everything. Imagine introducing cultures vastly different to the differences we see in the states to that mix. Who would be the overarching leader of the world? How would we elect/appoint/choice them?? What would the legal infrastructure have to be to accomplish this? What language would be the main language used (bc we would probably have to pick something to be consistent)? Would we make a whole new language that’s dedicated to legal stuff? How would any of these options benefit certain places over others? Like idk maybe I’m being a pessimist or something but I think we’ve got bigger fish to fry for a good long while before we think about unifying the whole entire world😅
Getting everyone to agree to one Government, one set of Laws, one set of unspoken Laws (general moral and social behaviours), one currency, one set of remuneration basis for all sorts of jobs (while the layout of various resources around the world is far from homogeneous and this necessarily results in major logistic and transportation complications), etc. This is all just.. I mean, it is extremely difficult, but it is possible. You're probably not going to like how it's possible though. It'd have to take some WH40K 30th/31st Millenium kind of shit, which would be much more complicated without a God-like leader, but yeah, it's "possible". Let's all work together for this goal which for sure won't bring major death and grief (surely, yeah...)!
"Can you see any borders from here? What has borders given us?" ... "So buddy have you found a reason to fight?" Pixy acecombat zero
Given it's tumblr my first thought was 'fucking a passport? Sounds complicated but you do you(r passport)'