4 ms·
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,
by javajosh 11y ago
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.
- sparkzilla 11y agoBut why stop there? Let's have no property rights and let the Mexicans stay in your bedroom.
- Dylan16807 11y agoBecause that's a completely unrelated concept.
- vetinari 11y agoHow's that? It's related, just different in scope.
- aianus 11y agoBecause the Mexicans would be working and paying rent or buying your property from you, not squatting in your bedroom for free.
- vetinari 11y agoThey 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.
- pgeorgi 11y ago> You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders. A significant part of the political arm (ie. those who aren't just helping because there are humans in need but have an agenda that transcends any concrete situation) of the "refugees welcome" movement start out from the "human right on free movement" that was mentioned here, and effectively want borders not to exist.
- vetinari 11y agoYes, I realize that. However, it is either political arm, as you wrote, or NGOs financed from abroad. Both are doing it for personal gain. But they are still minority, just very loud one and quite powerful one (not in the democratic sense, though). However, what they are doing is showing great example to the undecided, who are waking up.
- pluma 11y agoI'm European. I disagree with you. Stop generalizing.
- vetinari 11y agoHave you looked out of the window lately? Or is it too high from your ivory tower?
- dang 11y agoNo personal attacks on Hacker News, please.
- vetinari 11y agoSorry, it was not intended to be personal attack. Yes, the point, that someone may be minority in his opinion can be conveyed in a different way. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-immigration.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-...)
- vetinari 11y agoStill 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".
- notahacker 11y agoNational borders - useful as they might be - are the artificial, invented human construct here.
- quanticle 11y agoPolitical 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?