3 ms·

It is no more "sensible" for a state to be exercising control of its border than it is for a town to be exercising control over its border. We're all free peopl

It is no more "sensible" for a state to be exercising control of its border than it is for a town to be exercising control over its border. We're all free people in the world, and we should be able to move around it freely. There should be no borders at all.

eMSF 8y ago
Of course it's more sensible. A town doesn't have the same authority as the state. Although it's perhaps hard to see that from so far left of the field.
jamiegreen 8y ago
In this world, how would public officials plan for the number of school places needed in 2 years, or the number of hospital beds? It's a nice idea, but it seems impractical. The sentiment that we are "all free people" may sound nice but is unfortunately a meaningless platitude bearing little resemblance to the real world. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh
- jstanley 8y ago
  The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. I already drew a parallel between towns and countries. Remember, we're all free to visit or even move to a different town right now, and yet we don't have chaos.
  - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
    The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. With increased revenue from where, exactly?
HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Are you not then essentially arguing that states have no sovereignty? If so, how far do you take it - do individuals? Can any migrant - legal or not - rock up to your house and start camping on your lawn?
- jstanley 8y ago
  In my world there would be no such thing as an "illegal" migrant. And, the distinction would be between public places and private places. Anybody is free to exist in any public place with no permission required (just like you are already allowed to do once you're in the country). It would all be exactly the same as it is now, except there are no checks at the border, and no visa requirements.
  - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
    Do you seriously think the quality of life wouldn't deteriorate rapidly if this was the case? Or is that not your concern? Or would it not effect your area, so you don't care? I think it's utopian to believe that this would lead to anything but slums and shanty towns. People with no wealth will all flock to areas with wealth, which won't have the infrastructure to support them. They'd camp out wherever they could with whatever they could - possibly right outside your house. Probably in your back yard actually - local law enforcement would be too overwhelmed to go around persecuting squatting or trespassing. Travel to a large city in India to see what happens when free movement is coupled with massive inequality.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      It's certainly not ethically sound to lock out people from poor countries just because you don't want them to be poor nearby.
      - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
        Under your model people would just end up building huge gated-communities anyway - it would all be private property, so wouldn't violate any of your laws. People will find a way to keep people they don't want near by away from them.
- trhway 8y ago
  What do have against somebody camping on your lawn?
BjoernKW 8y ago
I agree that no borders at all is a desirable state. However, in order to achieve this, certain prerequisites have to be met first. Opening borders has to be accompanied and indeed preceded by economic development. The Schengen agreement for example only works because of the relatively similar economic situations of the member countries and even then it unfortunately has been a considerable cause for discord in recent years.
- jstanley 8y ago
  What bad things do you think would happen if opening borders were not accompanied or preceded by economic development? Or, to put it another way: what gives you the right to exist in a public place in the country you live in, but not a poorer person?
  - BjoernKW 8y ago
    I'm well aware of the fact that this is an ethical dilemma and that simply by winning the birth lottery one isn't morally entitled to living at a certain place any more than everybody else is. However, an argument can be made for the self-determination of groups as well, particularly their freedom of association (or lack thereof). Then there are more pragmatic matters. You can't simply let people starve if they can't provide for themselves. Providing for everyone who chooses to stay at a place but can't actually afford to do so might just not be economically feasible. Sure, over time these differentials will be evened out because people won't come to a place if it doesn't make economic sense to do so but simply opening all borders without taking possible consequences into account could lead to quite harsh outcomes.
  - hueving 8y ago
    It depends on if you think the immigrants deserve the social safety net the rest of the citizens have. The social safety nets of rich countries are completely unsustainable if they allow anyone to come in and receive them. There is a reason that there isn't a single country with any kind of strong social safety net that has open borders. The math isn't even close to working. If you don't apply the social safety net to the incoming immigrants, I don't see how you hold any higher moral ground than people who want controlled migration.
eesmith 8y ago
Towns can and have exercised control over their borders. Even in the US. Here's an example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire : > The 1918 flu pandemic spread so rapidly that, in general, there was no time to implement cordons sanitaires. However, to prevent an introduction of the infection, residents of Gunnison, Colorado isolated themselves from the surrounding area for two months at the end of 1918. All highways were barricaded near the county lines. Train conductors warned all passengers that if they stepped outside of the train in Gunnison, they would be arrested and quarantined for five days. As a result of this protective sequestration, no one died of influenza in Gunnison during the epidemic.
x220 8y ago
>we should be able to move around it freely What will you do when your neighbor country is stricken by communicable diseases? Will you still think that movement should be entirely restricted?
- jstanley 8y ago
  What will you do when your neighbouring town is stricken by communicable diseases?
  - x220 8y ago
    Believe it or not, the same instinct deals with both situations. Look up trait conscientiousness and disease prevalence.

eMSF 8y ago

Of course it's more sensible. A town doesn't have the same authority as the state. Although it's perhaps hard to see that from so far left of the field.

jamiegreen 8y ago

In this world, how would public officials plan for the number of school places needed in 2 years, or the number of hospital beds? It's a nice idea, but it seems impractical. The sentiment that we are "all free people" may sound nice but is unfortunately a meaningless platitude bearing little resemblance to the real world. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh

jstanley 8y ago
The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. I already drew a parallel between towns and countries. Remember, we're all free to visit or even move to a different town right now, and yet we don't have chaos.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  The same way town officials currently plan for the number of school places needed in their town in 2 years. With increased revenue from where, exactly?

HumanDrivenDev 8y ago

Are you not then essentially arguing that states have no sovereignty? If so, how far do you take it - do individuals? Can any migrant - legal or not - rock up to your house and start camping on your lawn?

jstanley 8y ago
In my world there would be no such thing as an "illegal" migrant. And, the distinction would be between public places and private places. Anybody is free to exist in any public place with no permission required (just like you are already allowed to do once you're in the country). It would all be exactly the same as it is now, except there are no checks at the border, and no visa requirements.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  Do you seriously think the quality of life wouldn't deteriorate rapidly if this was the case? Or is that not your concern? Or would it not effect your area, so you don't care? I think it's utopian to believe that this would lead to anything but slums and shanty towns. People with no wealth will all flock to areas with wealth, which won't have the infrastructure to support them. They'd camp out wherever they could with whatever they could - possibly right outside your house. Probably in your back yard actually - local law enforcement would be too overwhelmed to go around persecuting squatting or trespassing. Travel to a large city in India to see what happens when free movement is coupled with massive inequality.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    It's certainly not ethically sound to lock out people from poor countries just because you don't want them to be poor nearby.
    - HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
      Under your model people would just end up building huge gated-communities anyway - it would all be private property, so wouldn't violate any of your laws. People will find a way to keep people they don't want near by away from them.
trhway 8y ago
What do have against somebody camping on your lawn?

BjoernKW 8y ago

I agree that no borders at all is a desirable state. However, in order to achieve this, certain prerequisites have to be met first. Opening borders has to be accompanied and indeed preceded by economic development. The Schengen agreement for example only works because of the relatively similar economic situations of the member countries and even then it unfortunately has been a considerable cause for discord in recent years.

jstanley 8y ago
What bad things do you think would happen if opening borders were not accompanied or preceded by economic development? Or, to put it another way: what gives you the right to exist in a public place in the country you live in, but not a poorer person?
- BjoernKW 8y ago
  I'm well aware of the fact that this is an ethical dilemma and that simply by winning the birth lottery one isn't morally entitled to living at a certain place any more than everybody else is. However, an argument can be made for the self-determination of groups as well, particularly their freedom of association (or lack thereof). Then there are more pragmatic matters. You can't simply let people starve if they can't provide for themselves. Providing for everyone who chooses to stay at a place but can't actually afford to do so might just not be economically feasible. Sure, over time these differentials will be evened out because people won't come to a place if it doesn't make economic sense to do so but simply opening all borders without taking possible consequences into account could lead to quite harsh outcomes.
- hueving 8y ago
  It depends on if you think the immigrants deserve the social safety net the rest of the citizens have. The social safety nets of rich countries are completely unsustainable if they allow anyone to come in and receive them. There is a reason that there isn't a single country with any kind of strong social safety net that has open borders. The math isn't even close to working. If you don't apply the social safety net to the incoming immigrants, I don't see how you hold any higher moral ground than people who want controlled migration.

eesmith 8y ago

Towns can and have exercised control over their borders. Even in the US. Here's an example from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire : > The 1918 flu pandemic spread so rapidly that, in general, there was no time to implement cordons sanitaires. However, to prevent an introduction of the infection, residents of Gunnison, Colorado isolated themselves from the surrounding area for two months at the end of 1918. All highways were barricaded near the county lines. Train conductors warned all passengers that if they stepped outside of the train in Gunnison, they would be arrested and quarantined for five days. As a result of this protective sequestration, no one died of influenza in Gunnison during the epidemic.

x220 8y ago

>we should be able to move around it freely What will you do when your neighbor country is stricken by communicable diseases? Will you still think that movement should be entirely restricted?

jstanley 8y ago
What will you do when your neighbouring town is stricken by communicable diseases?
- x220 8y ago
  Believe it or not, the same instinct deals with both situations. Look up trait conscientiousness and disease prevalence.