The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
theatlantic.com
The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#2>Freedom of movement is a basic human right.
I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#3Interesting. I don't know enough about the economics to comment, but I will say that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and there is a path to a borderless world, which involves something like introducing a process whereby another nation can apply to become another state of the USA. Call it state-level immigration.
So, the USA has serious issues, but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote, and the total freedom of speech and religion. With these two tools in tact, all the other tools can be recreated as needed, according to the times. A member state would get a probation period and then two senate members, some house reps, and a full vote in federal elections. Meanwhile, they'd have to adopt state-level law consistent with US federal law.
The devil is in the details, of course. But maybe if and when software eats the legal system, such a process might be more likely.
(Of course, I have to wonder what is up with Puerto Rico and so many other odd American territories in legal limbo).
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#4>Freedom of movement is a basic human right. I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#5>Freedom of movement is a basic human right. I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
But why stop there? Let's have no property rights and let the Mexicans stay in your bedroom.
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
But why stop there? Let's have no property rights and let the Mexicans stay in your bedroom.
Because that's a completely unrelated concept.
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#7There is a case for open borders, in a perfect world. On the other hand, the destination country does not get any equity in the source country, as deferment. Immigrants take up resources (housing, educational, etc.) and send money out (remittances).
Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore. And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure, culture, economy etc? Do they get dividends on the source country which squandered its opportunities (say Indonesia with vast natural resources).
And what's the incentive for the people/gov't in the other countries to shape up? Remember, at the turn of the 20th century[1], lots of poor countries were on par with now developed nations and many developed and rich nations were backwaters (Norway, Sweden) and many powerhouses were very agricultural (the US, Japan, China, Russia) and kind of backward.
I think one could just as well make a case for, wait for it, the great bogey-concept, imperialism.
Why not have Singapore control Indonesia, bring in expertise, a culture of success, government and eradicate corruption gov't malfeasance and bring prosperity to Indonesia, for example?
I mean, what's the difference between Indonesians going to Singapore to become like Singaporeans and adopt some of their culture, versus Singapore having dominion over Indonesia and instilling some of their culture, success, economic prowess, etch, thus becoming a bit Singaporean?
[1]http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...
graphs show disparity in the 2 - 3x in the early 20th cent.
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#8>Freedom of movement is a basic human right. I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
Still the same thing. Group of people "owning" one jurisdiction/sovereign has right to decide, under what conditions they will allow or not allow people from other jurisdictions/sovereigns enter or not. Otherwise, you can move people as you wish and change outcome of any election or referendum by moving the "right" people. Democracy is dead then.
I agree with original poster, freedom to ignore borders is a fake, purposeful invented "human right".
Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#9Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely
#10>Freedom of movement is a basic human right. I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
Since the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
Political borders are an extension of private borders. If the citizens of Metropolis get together and decide that the citizens of Gotham are no longer welcome within their city limits, is that a private border they're defending, or a public one? If it's a public border, then what distinguishes the collective decision of all citizens of Metropolis from an individual decision by a single citizen of Metropolis? If it's a private border, then what distinguishes the border of Metropolis from the border of the United States of America?