4 ms·

> then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires [...] Implicit assumptio

by derefr 5y ago

> then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires [...] Implicit assumption: that people everywhere aren't just going to eventually all change their minds and be majority-for open borders in every country. Y'know, like with slavery. We didn't need a supra-national authority to get rid of that globally. Some countries just set an example by deciding to get rid of it; and then other countries' populations who interacted with those countries felt shamed into changing their own minds as well, which led to their own laws changing. It spread globally as a virulent meme. (Yes, we also established international bodies that crack down on slavery — but 1. we did that after slavery was mostly abolished; and 2. treaty bodies like that are toothless unless almost every country already agrees on the principle.) I'm not arguing that this is what will happen with open borders; only that it's not impossible for it to happen, and that that has to be accounted for in this kind of argument.

jlawson 5y ago
We did need a supra-national authority to get rid of slavery. British, Americans, and others historically fought many battles (often naval) and pressured many governments to stop slavery. What do you think ended the barbary slave trade? Why do you think Saudi stopped formally trading slaves? You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of racial slaves (i.e. black people kept as slaves for being black) in places like Mauritania. Slavery-like transactions continue in the middle east, Africa, and India. Supra-national authorities are still pushing, albeit often ineffectually, to end this.
- derefr 5y ago
  That's not a supra-national authority. That's a supra-national force. An authority is something people listen to, without it forcing them to do so. Something people give power over to, rather than having it taken from them. An elected leader is an authority. A valid one-world government would presumably have authority. A military superpower is not an authority. It's just a force. Every time it "unilaterally" makes a decision, it has to back that up with renewed force. As soon as the force stops, its control stops. That's not authority. (Think: the Byzantine empire. It had force over much of Western Europe for a few hundred years; but the people there never saw it as a valid authority. So as soon as its ability to project force ended, it lost control of its Western-European assets, and became the Eastern Byzantine Empire.) Also, a "supra-national" body like the International Court of Justice isn't an authority or a force; it's just a hub for communication. It has no command over anyone. The only thing it does is come up with ideas, and then — if UN member countries like — they can take those ideas for their own (i.e. sign on to a given declaration to give it force within their borders.) Such bodies are basically like the IETF, issuing RFCs. There's nothing requiring anyone to implement an RFC. You just implement it if-and-when you think it's a good idea. Countries are top-level; nobody has true authority over them. That's what "sovereignty" means. You only have a true supra-national authority if sovereignty ceases to exist. > You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. Adults don't generally change their ethical norms in response to exposure to external systems of ethics, no. But children often do. This is why many countries (e.g. the US) think that putting their media out on the global stage is important: it allows them to influence the political/ethical views of children in other countries in ways that make them think more like the origin culture of that media; and so make the country more likely to invite their cooperation and influence two or three generations later, when those children are now the country's leaders. There is a reason that e.g. America had to fight for sovereignty, but Canada did not. Or why France needed a series of internecine wars and bloody revolutions to establish democracy, but many neighbouring countries to France then peacefully, gradually established democratic societies some time later. Cultures are object-lessons for their neighbours! > The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. Well, yeah. Precisely because there isn't a supra-national authority with any authority to tell them to stop. There's just people with guns. You don't have to listen to guns if you have your own guns; especially if the guy that would point the guns at you has too many other higher-priority people to point their guns at first.
  - nicky0 5y ago
    So they used the wrong word, and it gave you an opportunity to pen an essay on "authority" vs "force". The actual point stands, however.
    - derefr 5y ago
      No, it doesn’t, because as I said, none of the multilateral treaty bodies run by the UN et al are “authorities” or “forces.” We don’t truly have any multilateral authorities. But having open borders doesn’t require multilateral authorities, because ending slavery also didn’t require multilateral authorities. It just required peer-to-peer use of force — which works perfectly well without creating a one-world government.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

by derefr 5y ago

jlawson 5y ago

We did need a supra-national authority to get rid of slavery. British, Americans, and others historically fought many battles (often naval) and pressured many governments to stop slavery. What do you think ended the barbary slave trade? Why do you think Saudi stopped formally trading slaves? You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of racial slaves (i.e. black people kept as slaves for being black) in places like Mauritania. Slavery-like transactions continue in the middle east, Africa, and India. Supra-national authorities are still pushing, albeit often ineffectually, to end this.

derefr 5y ago
That's not a supra-national authority. That's a supra-national force. An authority is something people listen to, without it forcing them to do so. Something people give power over to, rather than having it taken from them. An elected leader is an authority. A valid one-world government would presumably have authority. A military superpower is not an authority. It's just a force. Every time it "unilaterally" makes a decision, it has to back that up with renewed force. As soon as the force stops, its control stops. That's not authority. (Think: the Byzantine empire. It had force over much of Western Europe for a few hundred years; but the people there never saw it as a valid authority. So as soon as its ability to project force ended, it lost control of its Western-European assets, and became the Eastern Byzantine Empire.) Also, a "supra-national" body like the International Court of Justice isn't an authority or a force; it's just a hub for communication. It has no command over anyone. The only thing it does is come up with ideas, and then — if UN member countries like — they can take those ideas for their own (i.e. sign on to a given declaration to give it force within their borders.) Such bodies are basically like the IETF, issuing RFCs. There's nothing requiring anyone to implement an RFC. You just implement it if-and-when you think it's a good idea. Countries are top-level; nobody has true authority over them. That's what "sovereignty" means. You only have a true supra-national authority if sovereignty ceases to exist. > You really think they "felt shamed"? They don't care about your morality in the slightest. Adults don't generally change their ethical norms in response to exposure to external systems of ethics, no. But children often do. This is why many countries (e.g. the US) think that putting their media out on the global stage is important: it allows them to influence the political/ethical views of children in other countries in ways that make them think more like the origin culture of that media; and so make the country more likely to invite their cooperation and influence two or three generations later, when those children are now the country's leaders. There is a reason that e.g. America had to fight for sovereignty, but Canada did not. Or why France needed a series of internecine wars and bloody revolutions to establish democracy, but many neighbouring countries to France then peacefully, gradually established democratic societies some time later. Cultures are object-lessons for their neighbours! > The fight continues today as well. Slavery goes on. Well, yeah. Precisely because there isn't a supra-national authority with any authority to tell them to stop. There's just people with guns. You don't have to listen to guns if you have your own guns; especially if the guy that would point the guns at you has too many other higher-priority people to point their guns at first.
- nicky0 5y ago
  So they used the wrong word, and it gave you an opportunity to pen an essay on "authority" vs "force". The actual point stands, however.
  - derefr 5y ago
    No, it doesn’t, because as I said, none of the multilateral treaty bodies run by the UN et al are “authorities” or “forces.” We don’t truly have any multilateral authorities. But having open borders doesn’t require multilateral authorities, because ending slavery also didn’t require multilateral authorities. It just required peer-to-peer use of force — which works perfectly well without creating a one-world government.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]