Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#31

Post by TeMPOraL »

Asbostos wrote: post #29
TeMPOraL wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at this point hasn't the previously great economy been destroyed?

No. The people already there can afford it because they have a job and get paid in the local currency. It's just like what's happened in New York or San Francisco. Don't go there if you're unemployed or it'll be very difficult to survive. Those places allow free immigration from the rest of the US but they've reached capacity and stopped growing much. Of course this assumes immigrants aren't given social welfare.

> Of course this assumes immigrants aren't given social welfare.

Yeah, that is the key point I was implicitly not assuming. Thanks.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#32

Post by weddpros »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #20
mc32 wrote: post #7

There 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 i…

>> "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?" Well some of the concerns you are raising here are offset by simple economics. As more peopl…

_ up to a point where the next potential immigrant would no longer be interested in immigrating_

Do you really think economic immigrants can already afford the current prices? Do they move to the USA because it's cheap? or because it's rich? "Simple economics" don't work well here...

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#33

Post by GauntletWizard »

lwhalen wrote: post #19
joeclark77 wrote: post #15

Democracy is when the people can replace the government if they don't like the way it governs. What we're seeing in Europe and the US these days is that government is trying to replace the people because it doesn't like the way they vote. The unfettered-immigration and amnesty-for-illegals movements on both continents are direct attacks on democracy by governments that think they can get more money or power with a di…

Gerrymandering, but on a grander scale?

Entryism, but reversed. How much you consider Entryism to be a problem vs a feature of democracy is up for debate. I'm of the opinion that it's a fairly serious problem, in that it can easily destroy the 'Ship of Theseus', the internal continuity of an organization has been compromised.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#34

Post by calibraxis »

mahyarm wrote: post #11

Strong borders came with the welfare state to avoid a tragedy of the commons. Remove various fundamental benefits such as public school, medical care, welfare, transit, subsidized X and the millions of other benefits created in the past 120 years and open borders are not as big of a deal anymore. You just need to hop on a boat and arrive at ellis island, like the ancestors of many americans today. There are also para…

Where do I find evidence for this? I just checked, and the welfare state started in the 1880's by German conservatives, to fight bottom-up democracy and socialism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfa...)

Far before then, rulers and nation states restricted human movement. (http://newint.org/features/1991/09/05/simply/)

Anyway, the welfare state (which includes government investment in fundamental tech which led to advances like computing, internet, etc) is a major driver of innovation and growth. More humans coming in, treated well, can obviously contribute. (As they already do, exploited for the most miserable societal tasks.)

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#35

Post by Asbostos »

mc32 wrote: post #7

There 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 i…

Imperialism can be fantastic, but in much the same way a one-party political system can be fantastic. Only if it happens to be run well. There's no safety valve in case the powerful group goes off the rails oppressing the weaker one.

People seem to prefer living in a bad life as long as they feel their in-group members are responsible for it. For example, India has a democracy and the people keep voting for the corrupt parties that maintain it as a poor country full of suffering. They don't mind because it's themselves causing the problems. In contrast, China doesn't have a democracy but is perhaps treating its people better than India. Yet many Chinese still don't like the authoritarianism. I think it's just a sense of being in control that people want, even if they can't handle it competently.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#36

Post by notahacker »

vetinari wrote: post #8
javajosh wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

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, purp…

National borders - useful as they might be - are the artificial, invented human construct here.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#37

Post by notahacker »

calibraxis wrote: post #34
mahyarm wrote: post #11

Strong borders came with the welfare state to avoid a tragedy of the commons. Remove various fundamental benefits such as public school, medical care, welfare, transit, subsidized X and the millions of other benefits created in the past 120 years and open borders are not as big of a deal anymore. You just need to hop on a boat and arrive at ellis island, like the ancestors of many americans today. There are also para…

Where do I find evidence for this? I just checked, and the welfare state started in the 1880's by German conservatives, to fight bottom-up democracy and socialism. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#History_of_welfa... ) Far before then, rulers and nation states restricted human movement. ( http://newint.org/features/1991/09/05/simply/ ) Anyway, the welfare state (which includes government investment in fu…

It's historically inaccurate, but in practice true that without slowing down immigration it's pretty much impossible to sustain a system in which people "looking for work" are entitled to higher PPP incomes and better services than labourers in virtually all the rest of the world. (But there are obvious drawbacks to taking things to the opposite extreme and banning all immigration: it might be a lot more difficult and expensive to run the NHS without immigrant healthcare professionals, for example)

But of course you're right that borders have been closed by leaders believing they help enforce cultural and political stability for eons before that.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#38

Post by paulsutter »

sparkzilla wrote: post #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.

Property ownership is pretty much just an agreement among people, it's not a natural right.

In fact, you can discover the real owner of your property if you stop paying property taxes, or when a local government decides they want a road there.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#39

Post by vetinari »

notahacker wrote: post #36
vetinari wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, purp…

National borders - useful as they might be - are the artificial, invented human construct here.

So what? So are human rights or human laws.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#40

Post by arethuza »

sparkzilla wrote: post #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.

"Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property."

I walk and cycle over other people's land all the time - in fact I have a legal right to do that (with some pretty sensible restrictions). I can't remember ever meeting anyone who had a problem with me doing this - in fact a lot of farmers and gamekeepers seem quite happy to have you there if it's clear you are being sensible.

Post reply on HN