4 ms·

Stateless/borderless is an absurd goal to seek. (There are very good reasons for having countries and borders.. you have to draw the line somewhere) The ridicu

by monksy 8y ago

Stateless/borderless is an absurd goal to seek. (There are very good reasons for having countries and borders.. you have to draw the line somewhere) The ridiculous treatment of the individual in the situation is something we should come down hard on that section of the government. (They should be facing an inquiry about that)

spankalee 8y ago
> you have to draw the line somewhere Can you back up that assertion?
- ahjushi 8y ago
  Without lines/borders, where does one nation end and another begin? If you are suggesting no nations, what laws are you subject to and what protections do you have?
- _dps 8y ago
  No-borders only makes sense with anarchy or with global government. If there is more than one government in the world, they will have their own jurisdictions. Borders are the lines people use to separate jurisdictions in physical space (there are abstract separations as well). The border between the US and Mexico exists because the US and Mexico have different laws (including taxation and benefits). The border is where the US and Mexico have negotiated that one's rules stop holding and the other's rules start holding.
mindcrime 8y ago
Stateless/borderless is an absurd goal to seek. Why do you say so? There's nothing inherently "good" or "just" about nation states. The only nominal support I can find for such an idea is rooted in applying something like Dunbar's Number[1]. But arguably appealing to that is committing a variation of the naturalistic fallacy[2]. The ridiculous treatment of the individual in the situation is something we should come down hard on that section of the government. (They should be facing an inquiry about that) But who's going to conduct such an inquiry? The government? Oh, wait. It's the old "who watches the watchers?" problem. Me, I don't trust the government to provide oversight of itself. For the same reason I don't trust police to police themselves when it comes to excessive force cases, etc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- monksy 8y ago
  If you want to have a voice in your government, you have to have some kind of division in your area/nation. Without borders or nations, you're suggesting there will be a universal law. Who's law do you want? Do you want to be forced to wear head coverings, do you want internet censorship? Do you want to have kickbacks from the cartel? Having different nations allows you to understand where there are tradeoffs.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
"you have to draw the line somewhere" For taxes and things, sure. For oppression of peoples? Probably. To keep undesirable countries citizens out? Sure. To have an excuse not to care about what goes on in other countries? Most definitely. Travel and freedom of movement and work and choice in where you wind up living? Not really.

by monksy 8y ago

spankalee 8y ago

> you have to draw the line somewhere Can you back up that assertion?

ahjushi 8y ago
Without lines/borders, where does one nation end and another begin? If you are suggesting no nations, what laws are you subject to and what protections do you have?
_dps 8y ago
No-borders only makes sense with anarchy or with global government. If there is more than one government in the world, they will have their own jurisdictions. Borders are the lines people use to separate jurisdictions in physical space (there are abstract separations as well). The border between the US and Mexico exists because the US and Mexico have different laws (including taxation and benefits). The border is where the US and Mexico have negotiated that one's rules stop holding and the other's rules start holding.

mindcrime 8y ago

Stateless/borderless is an absurd goal to seek. Why do you say so? There's nothing inherently "good" or "just" about nation states. The only nominal support I can find for such an idea is rooted in applying something like Dunbar's Number[1]. But arguably appealing to that is committing a variation of the naturalistic fallacy[2]. The ridiculous treatment of the individual in the situation is something we should come down hard on that section of the government. (They should be facing an inquiry about that) But who's going to conduct such an inquiry? The government? Oh, wait. It's the old "who watches the watchers?" problem. Me, I don't trust the government to provide oversight of itself. For the same reason I don't trust police to police themselves when it comes to excessive force cases, etc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

monksy 8y ago
If you want to have a voice in your government, you have to have some kind of division in your area/nation. Without borders or nations, you're suggesting there will be a universal law. Who's law do you want? Do you want to be forced to wear head coverings, do you want internet censorship? Do you want to have kickbacks from the cartel? Having different nations allows you to understand where there are tradeoffs.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

"you have to draw the line somewhere" For taxes and things, sure. For oppression of peoples? Probably. To keep undesirable countries citizens out? Sure. To have an excuse not to care about what goes on in other countries? Most definitely. Travel and freedom of movement and work and choice in where you wind up living? Not really.