3 ms·

Control of borders is practically the definition of a nation. If you don't have a say in who comes in, you aren't a nation.

tptacek 12y ago
Control of borders is practically the definition of a nation in the sense of Westphalian Sovereignty, but arguing against that is Stross' whole point.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  He never really makes a coherent point about how his smaller states will handle borders. Bringing up Westphalia in this particular context is silly because it's an eternal truth. If your people don't control access to the land, you will lose control of the land. This was true ten thousand years ago and it's true of Tibetans now.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    An "eternal truth"? It's called Westphalian Sovereignty because it's the result of the eponymous historical event, prior to which extranational forces played a huge role in the internal politics of states.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      What point are you making? A chimp can understand this need to control land access. Saying "westphalia" over and over sheds no light. Control over immigration and land use was not invented by 17th century european diplomats if that's what you think. To the extent nations failed to control their borders in the past they were simply unfortunately weak nations.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        I think I'm making exactly the point I just made in the comment that you responded to: that prior to the Peace of Westphalia, extranational forces played a part in local policy. Today, states and national borders dominate policy, but in pre-Westphalian society, borders were fluid, and the church often played as great a role as local governments. One day Aquitaine was English, the next French, &c. Perhaps what Stross is intimating is that we'd be better off if Wales was Wales, Normandy Normany, &c, and that instead of the church, we devise some more sensible extranational force to implement the social contract across all those small nations.
        a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
        Borders were not fluid and influenced by outside powers for real nations. Nobody moved China's or Rome's or Assyria's borders until they lost battles. Or Prussia's for that matter. Westphalia was an agreement within a closely related ethnic and cultural zone (the crusader pals) for superpowers to not to push around the weaker nations quite so much. It's a temporal european footnote that attached some semantics to the specifically european concept of "the state" (not "nation"). In the broader reality of human history, a nation is a related group of people who can drive people off their land and keep them out, or at least subjugate others to dhimmitude. If you can't do that you will inevitably be conquered. Consider texas for a recent example. No magical international bureaucracy can prevent that in the long run.
arrrg 12y ago
Restricting freedom of movement and labour is morally unconscionable. I’m certain we will look back to that in a few centuries with horror. At least the EU was able to reduce that somewhat in some places. Sure, the outer border of the EU is horrific, but inside it’s at least somewhat ok. A world with borders is an evil and oppressive world. We should always work towards removing them all for everyone. (Yes, I know about Schengen and the differences between Schengen and the EU. However, be assured that Schengen would not exist without the EU. It’s just that achieving consensus is hard, so some want out of some things and some want it. That’s why it’s always so complicated and hard. EU is a convenient shorthand, because I don’t just mean visa free travel, I also mean being able to live and work in other places.)
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  That might work if all countries had similar culture, values, standards of living and agreements over things like how healthcare should be paid for. In reality, if a first world country opens it's borders to the rest of the world , even if the agreement is reciprocal then most of the traffic is going one way as people try and converge on the source of wealth. We already have this problem within the UK when trying to cram so many people into London. It also raises questions like, if I can live and work wherever I want why should I only be able to vote in one fixed arbitrary place?
  - arrrg 12y ago
    Yes, and abolishing slavery was also hard … (I do explicitly not want to compare the severity and impact of borders to the severity and impact of slavery or even racism today. It’s an analogy.) I know there are practical issues in the way that prevent abolishing borders. I know this won’t happen quickly, probably not during my lifetime, probably not in a couple centuries, but working towards a world where this is possible seems like a worthwhile goal to me. Why should people be arbitrarily bound to the place they were born? It’s insanity and highly unethical.
    - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
      I look forward to hearing your tune when 2,000 illiterate indians show up in your neighborhood and start publicly defecating all over the place. http://www.poo2loo.com/ http://www.poo2loo.com/

tptacek 12y ago

Control of borders is practically the definition of a nation in the sense of Westphalian Sovereignty, but arguing against that is Stross' whole point.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
He never really makes a coherent point about how his smaller states will handle borders. Bringing up Westphalia in this particular context is silly because it's an eternal truth. If your people don't control access to the land, you will lose control of the land. This was true ten thousand years ago and it's true of Tibetans now.
- tptacek 12y ago
  An "eternal truth"? It's called Westphalian Sovereignty because it's the result of the eponymous historical event, prior to which extranational forces played a huge role in the internal politics of states.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    What point are you making? A chimp can understand this need to control land access. Saying "westphalia" over and over sheds no light. Control over immigration and land use was not invented by 17th century european diplomats if that's what you think. To the extent nations failed to control their borders in the past they were simply unfortunately weak nations.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I think I'm making exactly the point I just made in the comment that you responded to: that prior to the Peace of Westphalia, extranational forces played a part in local policy. Today, states and national borders dominate policy, but in pre-Westphalian society, borders were fluid, and the church often played as great a role as local governments. One day Aquitaine was English, the next French, &c. Perhaps what Stross is intimating is that we'd be better off if Wales was Wales, Normandy Normany, &c, and that instead of the church, we devise some more sensible extranational force to implement the social contract across all those small nations.
      - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
        Borders were not fluid and influenced by outside powers for real nations. Nobody moved China's or Rome's or Assyria's borders until they lost battles. Or Prussia's for that matter. Westphalia was an agreement within a closely related ethnic and cultural zone (the crusader pals) for superpowers to not to push around the weaker nations quite so much. It's a temporal european footnote that attached some semantics to the specifically european concept of "the state" (not "nation"). In the broader reality of human history, a nation is a related group of people who can drive people off their land and keep them out, or at least subjugate others to dhimmitude. If you can't do that you will inevitably be conquered. Consider texas for a recent example. No magical international bureaucracy can prevent that in the long run.

arrrg 12y ago

Restricting freedom of movement and labour is morally unconscionable. I’m certain we will look back to that in a few centuries with horror. At least the EU was able to reduce that somewhat in some places. Sure, the outer border of the EU is horrific, but inside it’s at least somewhat ok. A world with borders is an evil and oppressive world. We should always work towards removing them all for everyone. (Yes, I know about Schengen and the differences between Schengen and the EU. However, be assured that Schengen would not exist without the EU. It’s just that achieving consensus is hard, so some want out of some things and some want it. That’s why it’s always so complicated and hard. EU is a convenient shorthand, because I don’t just mean visa free travel, I also mean being able to live and work in other places.)

jiggy2011 12y ago
That might work if all countries had similar culture, values, standards of living and agreements over things like how healthcare should be paid for. In reality, if a first world country opens it's borders to the rest of the world , even if the agreement is reciprocal then most of the traffic is going one way as people try and converge on the source of wealth. We already have this problem within the UK when trying to cram so many people into London. It also raises questions like, if I can live and work wherever I want why should I only be able to vote in one fixed arbitrary place?
- arrrg 12y ago
  Yes, and abolishing slavery was also hard … (I do explicitly not want to compare the severity and impact of borders to the severity and impact of slavery or even racism today. It’s an analogy.) I know there are practical issues in the way that prevent abolishing borders. I know this won’t happen quickly, probably not during my lifetime, probably not in a couple centuries, but working towards a world where this is possible seems like a worthwhile goal to me. Why should people be arbitrarily bound to the place they were born? It’s insanity and highly unethical.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    I look forward to hearing your tune when 2,000 illiterate indians show up in your neighborhood and start publicly defecating all over the place. http://www.poo2loo.com/ http://www.poo2loo.com/