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

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#51

Post by venomsnake »

pluma wrote: post #48
venomsnake wrote: post #27

No thank you. I prefer strong borders. I like the secular culture of Europe as is. Anything that even potentially threatens it is direct attack on me.

Secular? Angela Merkel fairly recently (in the context of whether to expand the EU to Turkey) made a statement about European values being Christian values. Not that I agree with her (the "Christian" values of modern Europe are secular values that have replaced the original Christian values because we spent centuries figuring out that they're wrong so calling our modern values Christian is incredibly misleading) but…

It is not about Islam. It is about taking religion too seriously. The guys that read Torah all days (or the bible) are worrying too. It is about the strain of Islam that uneducated young arab males bring. Secular Muslims in Istanbul are generally fine people, as are the secular elites while the middle east was ruled by stable governments - and welcome in europe. The hijab is not.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#52

Post by vetinari »

pluma wrote: post #49
vetinari wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like we have partisans here, downmodding the "incorrect dissent". Not only this parent, but all dissenting comments.

Looks like we have a low tolerance for populist nationalist rhetoric. Frankly, as a German I'm disgusted by some of the "dissenting" comments. We've already been through this nationalist crap before and we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes.

That famous German collective guilt kicking in, plus that nice tactics, when any dissent is being labeled by extreme labels.

You are on the best way to destroy Europe again, do you realize that? The rest of Europe is not repeating your mistakes, they are not looking for more Lebensraum and killing Untermenschen, they want to preserve what's theirs. And you have no right to dictate them what to do.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#53

Post by vetinari »

pluma wrote: post #47
vetinari wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would be living in my country, demand voting rights, then demand things that the original residents would never vote for, but will have to pay for anyway. Why should I agree to change (from my POV: destroy) the society where I live? Btw: I'm not US citizen. I'm European. You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders.

I'm European. I disagree with you. Stop generalizing.

Have you looked out of the window lately? Or is it too high from your ivory tower?

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#54

Post by ionised »

vetinari wrote: post #52
pluma wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like we have a low tolerance for populist nationalist rhetoric. Frankly, as a German I'm disgusted by some of the "dissenting" comments. We've already been through this nationalist crap before and we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes.

That famous German collective guilt kicking in, plus that nice tactics, when any dissent is being labeled by extreme labels. You are on the best way to destroy Europe again, do you realize that? The rest of Europe is not repeating your mistakes, they are not looking for more Lebensraum and killing Untermenschen, they want to preserve what's theirs. And you have no right to dictate them what to do.

Neither do you.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#55

Post by LoSboccacc »

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…

official welfare state might have become a thing just recently but the concept behind like redistribution of wealth and creating opportunities for class mobility predates it by a couple millenia

http://www.britannica.com/topic/alimenta http://www.britannica.com/topic/civitas

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#56

Post by bmh_ca »

Most folks do not know the history of the sovereign state, but the version that we have today is a descendent of the Westphalian State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty). Even fewer people know why it came about in this form, yet the reason it came about may be quite important in this discussion.

After the Thirty Years and Eighty Years Wars came the Westphalian Peace of 1648 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia). A primary objective of the Peace was to recognize sovereignty because during the war and in the time leading up to it integrated economies were wracked by shocks and corruption.

Some argue, and I am mindful that, the only proven bulwark against such shocks and corruption may be sovereignty of the sort that the Westphalian Peace created.

The notion of sovereignty has stood the test of time – it seems reasonably compatible with how collectives of humans perceive and react with their world – but through the modern globalization of capital we may be re-learning a 360 year old lesson.

So while the globalization of human labour has yet to catch up to freedom of international capital flows – a failure that creates tremendous unfairness, and this analysis is admittedly brief and glossy, it is worth keeping in mind that we may be unlocking the same doors that created unfathomable multi-generational wars now long forgotten.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#57

Post by LoSboccacc »

Asbostos wrote: post #35
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 corru…

yup, as ideal as a single world government can be, none of our system scale that well to cope with a government with global power

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#58

Post by hga »

pluma wrote: post #49
vetinari wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like we have partisans here, downmodding the "incorrect dissent". Not only this parent, but all dissenting comments.

Looks like we have a low tolerance for populist nationalist rhetoric. Frankly, as a German I'm disgusted by some of the "dissenting" comments. We've already been through this nationalist crap before and we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes.

Do you have any confidence that all this, the chaos, violence and economic problems it will inevitably bring, won't cause a return to some form of "this nationalist crap"?

And when you say "we're not going to let the rest of Europe repeat our own mistakes", well, I guarantee that attitude is sending chills up the spines of your neighbors.

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#59

Post by AnimalMuppet »

arethuza wrote: post #42
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…

"Strong borders came with the welfare state" The Hadrian and Antonine walls close to where I am suggest otherwise. Also a lot of borders well before the "welfare state" were policed carefully to collect taxes - which is why smuggling was such a big thing in many areas.

I agree that the GP's statement is disconnected from history, but I'm not sure that your counterexample works. Rome had "the dole" by the time of Julius Caesar (the "bread" in "bread and circuses").

Re: The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

#60

Post by ddingus »

ionised wrote: post #46
javajosh wrote: post #3

Interesting. 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 v…

> but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote. I wouldn't call any political system which allows Citizens United or any form of lobbying fair. It overshadows and taints the entire electoral and representative processes.

That is unfair. However, we can still remedy that through the vote.

Motivating people to actually do that is a political problem. Our process is just in this way.

Lazy / uninformed people getting the product of those behaviors is arguably just, given the process does provide meaningful remedies.

It's an interesting dynamic. I do see it as somewhat self-correcting. When it gets ugly enough, the process does allow for meaningful reform. Right now, social progress is good. Good enough to provide motivation for preserving the status quo.

Economic pressures continue to mount, but many people still have options, and what we value as people varies widely. Many don't need or want much, but they value social equality, consideration as people, etc... very highly.

Can the deal be made sweet enough for the peeps to accept an entrenched oligarchy? Who knows?

My point though, on fairness, is the process in the USA is allowing that question to be posed, and posed fairly. Sure, the people are being flooded with a lot of misinformation, but most of those people are completely free to talk among themselves, gather, organize, vote... too.

I will recognize voting rights attacks as unfair. Alabama recently closing DMV offices in poor / black counties is unacceptable. Problems do exist, but so do remedies when people do organize and act.

They have to value doing that first though. More and better advocacy is needed.

Post reply on HN