5 ms·

>...crossing an imaginary line... But it's not an imaginary line, it's a line that two democratic countries agreed to create to separate them. She inadvertentl

>...crossing an imaginary line... But it's not an imaginary line, it's a line that two democratic countries agreed to create to separate them. She inadvertently crossed one of the most important lines that exists, a line that demarcates two sovereign countries that hold wildly different world views. Until such a stateless utopia manifests itself we still need these lines. I agree on the two week detention being absurd. It should have taken less than a few hours to sort things out.

mindcrime 8y ago
But it's not an imaginary line, it's a line that two democratic countries agreed to create to separate them. Sorry, but I can't help but read that as "it's not an imaginary line, it's an imaginary line". She inadvertently crossed one of the most important lines that exists, a line that demarcates two sovereign countries A case can be made that "sovereign countries" are imaginary constructs that should be abolished, along with their imaginary lines of demarcation. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that elevating that line to some concrete status is rooted in a worldview which has no objective reality. We can abolish borders, we just need to come together and muster up the will to do it. Which means, in part, finding solutions to all the problems the statists will use as arguments for preserving their lines.
- colemannugent 8y ago
  >A case can be made that "sovereign countries" are imaginary constructs that should be abolished An exceedingly weak case can be made. It makes for a fun thought experiment but it falls apart really quickly. Say someone did manage to abolish all the states, why would that not just be the conqueror establishing a new global state? How would you enforce the rule no states allowed? Who would enforce it? If there was no global state to enforce the rule, what stops someone like me from organizing a state and easily conquering the stateless? >...elevating that line to some concrete status is rooted in a worldview which has no objective reality I'm curious what worldview you think is rooted in objective reality? To me a world where everyone just gets along and lives in cooperative communes is lacking a foundation in reality. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the state. I do however view it as a necessary evil. Remember, ultimately the state is still just people. Any gripe you have with the state is just a gripe against people with power. Saying that nobody should hold power is a cop out. The hard part of organizing the human race is trying to determine who should organize us. To that end it seems like a democratic state is more desirable than a hopelessly disorganized commune.
- ahjushi 8y ago
  "Imaginary" doesn't mean useless or meaningless. Let's take a look at this at a smaller scale: property lines. Assuming one has a front yard within their property lines, that line too is "imaginary" in that it may not be explicitly demarcated or labeled. Would you be fine with anyone and everyone chillin in your front yard? If you want to make the argument that border lines are imaginary, can you even call your front yard "yours"? We can abolish borders, but that doesn't seem like a future rooted in reality. Who governs who? Sounds like you want everyone to live under one "nation"...like are you really advocating for world peace? What laws are you subject to? What protections do you have? These are all dependent on which side of the border you land, therefore you have to set where one side ends and where another begins.
pwinnski 8y ago
She didn't cross a river, or a mountain, or a wall, or a fence. The line is definitely imaginary. It is also real.
- asdsa5325 8y ago
  The border is marked in various ways.
  - pwinnski 8y ago
    The whole point of this story is that it is not marked at the point she crossed. It's a beach. Presumably the part she jogged along is underwater part of the time due to tides and that is why there is no marker. You seem to be stuck on the label "imaginary" in ways that are unrelated to the article at hand.
xenadu02 8y ago
Except for 100+ years the line was mostly imaginary. There are towns that cross the border. The idea that we need such border security is laughable and a flimsy excuse for expansion of government powers.

mindcrime 8y ago

But it's not an imaginary line, it's a line that two democratic countries agreed to create to separate them. Sorry, but I can't help but read that as "it's not an imaginary line, it's an imaginary line". She inadvertently crossed one of the most important lines that exists, a line that demarcates two sovereign countries A case can be made that "sovereign countries" are imaginary constructs that should be abolished, along with their imaginary lines of demarcation. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that elevating that line to some concrete status is rooted in a worldview which has no objective reality. We can abolish borders, we just need to come together and muster up the will to do it. Which means, in part, finding solutions to all the problems the statists will use as arguments for preserving their lines.

colemannugent 8y ago
>A case can be made that "sovereign countries" are imaginary constructs that should be abolished An exceedingly weak case can be made. It makes for a fun thought experiment but it falls apart really quickly. Say someone did manage to abolish all the states, why would that not just be the conqueror establishing a new global state? How would you enforce the rule no states allowed? Who would enforce it? If there was no global state to enforce the rule, what stops someone like me from organizing a state and easily conquering the stateless? >...elevating that line to some concrete status is rooted in a worldview which has no objective reality I'm curious what worldview you think is rooted in objective reality? To me a world where everyone just gets along and lives in cooperative communes is lacking a foundation in reality. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the state. I do however view it as a necessary evil. Remember, ultimately the state is still just people. Any gripe you have with the state is just a gripe against people with power. Saying that nobody should hold power is a cop out. The hard part of organizing the human race is trying to determine who should organize us. To that end it seems like a democratic state is more desirable than a hopelessly disorganized commune.
ahjushi 8y ago
"Imaginary" doesn't mean useless or meaningless. Let's take a look at this at a smaller scale: property lines. Assuming one has a front yard within their property lines, that line too is "imaginary" in that it may not be explicitly demarcated or labeled. Would you be fine with anyone and everyone chillin in your front yard? If you want to make the argument that border lines are imaginary, can you even call your front yard "yours"? We can abolish borders, but that doesn't seem like a future rooted in reality. Who governs who? Sounds like you want everyone to live under one "nation"...like are you really advocating for world peace? What laws are you subject to? What protections do you have? These are all dependent on which side of the border you land, therefore you have to set where one side ends and where another begins.

pwinnski 8y ago

She didn't cross a river, or a mountain, or a wall, or a fence. The line is definitely imaginary. It is also real.

asdsa5325 8y ago
The border is marked in various ways.
- pwinnski 8y ago
  The whole point of this story is that it is not marked at the point she crossed. It's a beach. Presumably the part she jogged along is underwater part of the time due to tides and that is why there is no marker. You seem to be stuck on the label "imaginary" in ways that are unrelated to the article at hand.

xenadu02 8y ago

Except for 100+ years the line was mostly imaginary. There are towns that cross the border. The idea that we need such border security is laughable and a flimsy excuse for expansion of government powers.