10 ms·

Ten million people around the world have no nationality

112 points by Turukawa 12y ago

bobcoat 12y ago
We all should be united I love the united world with united religion.LoL
SabinaHary 12y ago
Is it true?? Really???
gnu8 12y ago
Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born? This is in no way an argument for anarchism. Political subdivisions are necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their interests against the other subdivisions. But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. Nothing could be less logical than that.
- JumpCrisscross 12y ago
  > What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born? Those "rights and privileges" are enforced by physical means.
- Retric 12y ago
  Modern infrastructure (physical and social) can't handle massive population migrations. Consider a basic US example. City's deal with their homeless populations in different ways, but if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped. Further, cities can export their homeless by being overly draconian. Net result, it’s basically impossible to deal with the homeless problem at the local level. Now, scale that up to 2 Billion poor people around the world. PS: The tragedy of the commons applies to far more than just land. Closed national borders allow for significant social progress which is otherwise impossible as it would otherwise need to scale beyond what any country could possibly support.
  - yeukhon 12y ago
    > if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped It's real. People move different state to live and to do business for various reasons but most are really the benefits that other states offer. There is a difference between nationalism (being loyal and passionate about one's nationality) and identity. This is particularly obvious when it comes to ethnicity and nationality. Do I identify myself as Chinese or Chinese American? As a Chinese do I identify myself as a Chinese-speaking HK person or a Chinese? Does one identifying oneself as American because of natural birth is the same as being a nationalist? When two New Yorkers ask each other "where are you from" is it significant to hear "I am from Queens", "I am from Bronx"? You don't hear two people say "I am human, an earthly being" because obviously they are human and it would be redundant to even say to each other as introduction. Context, audience matters. Having a nationality is one form of identity. Yet, some don't have that nationality tag like many here do. In China there is census register system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system). Basically you can live anywhere you want, but you will be treated as second-class resident outside of your birth/registered city/town. If you are wealthy, fine, if not, you are just as nobody as homeless. This including your education and social welfare. One of the key reasons for this is to manage population distribution and welfare distribution.
    - kleer001 12y ago
      Whoa, heavy duty! Thanks for the education about the Hukou system.
  - DMac87 12y ago
    > City's deal with their homeless populations in different ways, but if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped. Further, cities can export their homeless by being overly draconian. I doubt the issue is as simple as I believe you intend - I don't think there are many examples of draconian cities eliminating homelessness via exports. I also don't think overly generous cities are swamped as much as you believe - size of city & climate are larger factors in homeless population size than generosity.
    - 12y ago
- mod 12y ago
  I'd like to continue to see varying rights & privileges, however I'd like it to be easier to choose which set you'd like to belong to (migrate). If I don't like your set of rules, I want to be able to go somewhere that has more agreeable ones. I think that's still nationality, but a different type of nationality (choice rather than birthright) than we currently have.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  >Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. Then so is private property. What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line is the house they currently reside in. I am sure you won't mind a free for all at your home.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Nationality confers both rights and expectations. Those rights and privileges are paid for by taxation on US nationals.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Maybe not logical, but rights are a social construct. Nationality is a public recognition of 'here the social rules change'.
- blfr 12y ago
  Borders are essential. For groups, organizations, life itself. http://www.meltingasphalt.com/border-stories/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/border-stories/
- trhway 12y ago
  >Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. as well as planet or galaxy quadrant or specific species one was born on or at. Many people/societies have evolved past the stage of the valley/tribe/village and now the most of the human species is at region and nationality state. Some advanced people were able to evolve past that. It requires letting go identification characteristics that are just given by birth and mentally moving on to what her or his truely personal identification is, ie. result of her/his personal efforts, like education, life/work experience, personal spiritual and intellectual development, etc... > What rational basis is there there isn't. Just our low evolutionary stage. Deeply xenophobic.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > It requires letting go identification characteristics that are just given by birth and mentally moving on to what her or his truely personal identification is, ie. result of her/his personal efforts, like education, life/work experience, personal spiritual and intellectual development, etc... I don't know what's so great about this. Is HN, a conglomeration of (mostly male) economic and educational elite, a "more evolved" state of social organization than a small-town church, which might draw in people from different economic walks of life?
    - trhway 12y ago
      > Is HN, a conglomeration of (mostly male) economic and educational elite, a "more evolved" state of social organization than a small-town church, which might draw in people from different economic walks of life? in my view mentally associating yourself with any group is exactly the root of the division "us vs. them (and us obviously better [whatever that means] than them)" and things go downhill from that. In that regard any "elite" group (self-identifying itself as such) is pretty much indistinguishable from a small-town church.
  - dropit_sphere 12y ago
    > there isn't. Just our low evolutionary stage. Deeply xenophobic. This seems to be a deeply confused comment. What about evolution is "high" or "low"? Which is a higher form of life, the housefly, or the Neanderthal? Which one is still around? If aliens with FTL travel and psychic powers were to visit us and start wiping us out, would their xenophobia[1] mark them as a being at a "lower" evolutionary stage? If so, what is the use of such a classification?[2] Evolution is not always "up." For that matter, "up" isn't always "up." "The feedback loop never really ends, so a tenth year polysentience can be a priceless jewel or a psychotic wreck," ~Alpha Centauri [1]And if they were the ones wiping us out, who would be more "phobic" (afraid), us or them? [2]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvolutionaryLevels http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvolutionaryLevel...
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. This is something to work towards, but it runs up against some pretty basic problems. For one thing, enforcement of those rights will entail war. For another, some rights are contrary to local culture. For example, the right to leave Islam is contrary to the culture of a region which wants sharia law. The right for certain people to get married and live together and have sex (both of which are relevant even if marriage goes away) is contrary to certain other religious cultures. Are those cultures wrong? Are you going to tell people their culture is wrong?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Yes, I am happy to tell those people they are wrong. Freedom of religion -and that includes no religion- is a right I defend. (Article 18 UDHR) Freedom to marry is sadly ambiguously worded in UNDHR But I defend the right for people of age -regardless of gender- to marry and have a family. (Article 16)
    - mc32 12y ago
      The think is that while most of us will agree with your point of view, in the end it's just a point if view. These opinions are based on our frameworks --they aren't either natural or universal. So someone else can have completely different framework not based on traditional western thinking and come up with a logical framework which contradicts yours. We're fortunate in that most people have agreement on some principles and that we don't have to figure out why it's undesirable to make theft perfectly legal or make assault perfectly legal foe everyone, bug all of this just happens to be convention. We don't arrive at that because 2+2=4.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        You onow these are in the Universal Declaratin of Human Rights, right? And that these are things that many countries have agreed are human rights and are things that they should work to? And that they're now part of international law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_... And so, while they are just shot some people made up they have a bit more going for them than that.
- aikah 12y ago
  > Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. Then why don't you give up yours? > What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born? Same can be said about private property. What the rational basis. Are you ready to give up the concept of ownership? I'd be glad to settle in your home, eat your food and poop in your toilets without flushing. > This is in no way an argument for anarchism. > Political subdivisions are necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their interests against the other subdivisions. But that's exactly what nations are. > But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. But you just said Political subdivisions are necessary ...
- pjc50 12y ago
  This is very much the EU approach of human rights rather than "constitutional" rights. They apply to immigrants, and this annoys the UK government immensely. There is also the Schengen right to reside in any EU country. The long term way this pans out is less clear. People don't lose their ethnicity when they change nationality. You end up with irridentists and conflicts, such as the "green line" across Cyprus.
  - avar 12y ago
    You and mortehu upthread have mentioned Schengen in the context of being allowed to reside in any country within the area. That's not what Schengen is about, you're thinking of the European Economic Area. Schengen is a customs union which allows passport-free travel within its borders, but the EEA is the area you can freely migrate within.
- cjcole 12y ago
  I'll skip over the surface contradiction [1]. I believe that you're not really arguing against nations (or states) but against "exclusion". I think you're arguing that there may be political divisions, but that the individuals themselves should be the sole arbiters of which political division they (for lack of a better word) belong to at any given time. Any political subdivision should not be able to exclude someone. Is that fair? [1] The surface contradiction is that "nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept" while "political subdivisions are necessary". This apparent contradiction can be resolved in a few ways but I believe I get what you intended. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- rayiner 12y ago
  You're confusing cause and effect. Both rights and borders are effects of the same cause: people banding together to defend each other. There's no rights in the state of nature--when a pack of dolphins kill a porpoise for fun, no rights have been violated--they arise only to the extent that people agree to use violence under certain conditions to protect members of their group. Borders are simply symptoms of the fact that groups of people naturally defend contiguous areas of physical territory, within which they undertake the obligation of enforcing "rights."
- Torgo 12y ago
  The benefit of nations is that there is not a universally agreed-upon set of values.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  I think this is a dangerous attitude to take, and please allow me to explain why. Really it boils down to decentralization vs centralization. You mention that people are "excluded" from rights and privileges, but the problem with the globalist view you espouse is that by lumping in a nation and it's people with the world you remove the political lines in a meaningful form. National Sovereignty is the real issue at hand here, but it's a sensitive subject that not very many people like to touch. I've heard some fairly powerful beltway people reference it as dead, but if that's true our entire government is operating under a fallacy, there are some big implications here and I would love to see more academic research (as in, if anyone has any links I would appreciate them) on the subject. I do think the lessons of the internet are important here though, namely that if you try to claim no nationality, peoples nationality becomes Earth, and a global government along with it. I want to go the opposite direction, less federal power, more state power, more local power (constitutionally restricted of course). The only oath I ever swore was to protect and defend the Constitution, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and watch America be Europeanized without an intellectual fight, because my forefathers fought hard to establish the freedoms I have here that still don't exist anywhere else in the world. Yes I'm aware of the other countries higher levels of "actual" freedom, particularly the nordic ones, but I think our idealistic vision is still a superior one. For example, Vincent Reynouard of France was recently sentenced to two years in jail for his non-violent historical opinions regarding the Holocaust. I tend to side with Voltaire on free speech, apparently the French don't. These same issues are also readily apparent in the TPP. I think it is a good microcosm of the kind of affect on nations you will get with a reduction of nationalism, eg, equally exploited populace by a supranational oligarchy.
- powertower 12y ago
  That's like saying families is an obsolete concept and anyone should be able to come into your family and get all the benefits and rights and privileges as your born children get (including all the love and attention you give them, the twice a year dentist visit, breakfast, etc). Also rights aren't fundamental in nature, they only exist because groups of people come together, produce/work, and that work provides the benefits you call "rights". Others just consume those rights. And given that resources are limited, and that highly advanced societies require highly advanced skills, there is no "logic" in flooding countries with seekers of benefits who are mostly not going to add any value to that society for 3 generations while costing the resources of 10. They will simply consume.
  - kleer001 12y ago
    > That's like saying families is an obsolete That's like saying a tennis ball and a planet are the same because they're both round. Scale, you're missing the scale of it.
    - powertower 12y ago
      > That's like saying a tennis ball and a planet are the same because they're both round. What is this random analogy and what does it have to do with mine? > Scale, you're missing the scale of it. The number of tennis balls that would fit in the volume of this planet has 25 digits in it. So no, it's not even close to the scale of anything. And what does being round have to do with it? I can't even figure out what your argument is.
      - sweettea 12y ago
        You're saying families are like nations, in that $arbitraryPerson can't just "come into your family/nation and get all the benefits and rights and privileges as your born children/citizens get". They're saying that the difference in scale makes the comparison invalid; a nation is, say, 8 orders of magnitude larger than a family, and, similarly, the earth is 25 orders of magnitude larger than a tennis ball. For the same reason that comparing the earth and tennis balls doesn't work because of scale, comparing a nation and families doesn't work because of scale.
- kleer001 12y ago
  Tragically this world is not ruled by reason, but rhetoric.
- vacri 12y ago
  What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges... 'Rights' and 'privileges' are just as abstract a concept as 'nationality'. Not to mention that they all rely on underlying 'culture' - different nations, rights, and privileges are all seen in different cultures.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Perhaps it should be, but it isn't - rather it's the norm of how we do things. It'll be obsolete when you have a passport and nobody cares about it or the country that issued it other than nostalgic hipsters and antiquarians.
spiritplumber 12y ago
almost 8 billion too few. nations should be something you subscribe to, because you like their culture, are willing to learn the local language, and so on. beyond that, pay taxes to whatever community you live in (infrastructure use fee).
- Sevzi 12y ago
  Sure thing--one more to be wiped away when the Singularity hits.
- cjcole 12y ago
  Would nations be required to accept all subscriptions? If yes, on what basis and on whose enforcement?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  That's sorta like a lot of the "Hispanic" immigrant community in the US, isn't it? Many still fiercely identify as their home country, etc., but end up paying local US taxes. But if nationality enforced where they had to live, nearly all of them would drop it to be a US national in a second.
  - mvc 12y ago
    I don't think that's unique to the Hispanic community. I'm from Scotland and our tourism industry thrives on Americans who identify as Scottish or Irish even after many generations have passed. I would imagine this is true for Germany and Italy too.
RodericDay 12y ago
We readily acknowledge the benefits of tearing down all the barriers for capital to move between countries, but the ones for humans seem to be sticky.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  Capital can't come bringing ebola or polio.
  - jfoutz 12y ago
    I don't understand your point. Didn't capital come with smallpox? Capital intensive processes always come with unknowable risk. Coal power means coal mines, which for some people means black lung. Air travel means death by plane crashes. High voltage power lines mean death by electrocution. Overall, we're better off - but it's silly to claim capital infusion is automagically harmless. Again, perhaps this isn't the argument you're making. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean?
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      My point is, foreign investment can't make you sick, at least not directly. People, on the other hand, can.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > We readily acknowledge the benefits of tearing down all the barriers for capital to move between countries, but the ones for humans seem to be sticky. That's because the same interests that support free movement of capital are served by limited mobility for persons (in the both roles as "consumer" and as "labor"), and those interests are disproportionately powerful in their influence over policy (and the discussions of policy issues in the mass media.)
smackfu 12y ago
Here's an interesting site if you want to read more about statelessness in various countries: http://www.nationalityforall.org/regions http://www.nationalityforall.org/regions
Sevzi 12y ago
Well, I have no race, so perhaps don't see this as big as a problem.
- ArtDev 12y ago
  Let me guess, you have never been to a third-world country?
  - Sevzi 12y ago
    Sure--the one I share half my genes with.
aikah 12y ago
Who forced the concept of nations upon Africans at first place? Who created most Africans and middle Eastern countries? Sure Africans didn't, but Hélène, France, your country sure did well by fucking up these places.Anybody can go see a map. Countries with almost perfect linear shapes , putting tribes and ethnical groups that have nothing to do with each others in the same country, or putting the tribe in 2 different states. Then writing a blog post complaining about how Africa is fucked up ? Edit: and of course, most of the comments here have nothing to do with the article, which is specifically about the situation in Africa. Nobody read it obviously.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  We can blame France (and others) for colonialism, and for the unnatural borders that African nations have, but remember, the actual existence of African nations is still due to the people there wanting to have nations of their own. In Africa, this process largely happened during 1950-1970. No one "forced" the concept of nations upon Africans, except by setting an example for what nation states can achieve. The time of colonialism was largely the opposite of having nations. It was the nations that overthrew colonialists.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    They haven't got the choice of borders. They could only use colonial borders, and those were counterproductive for a healthy nation. Sure they wanted nation states, but they got crappy ones. And it could not go much better. Their failure is rooted in past outside their political control.
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      Borders of nations can be changed by mutual agreement. Unfortunately the national leaders of African nations have been willing to keep these arbitrary borders, and much of the time only the other way is applied, i.e. war. War is also how the European national borders have been decided. In the U.S., the state borders are remarkably similar to African borders: straight lines along a particular meridian or circle of latitude. So is the Canadian border.
sytse 12y ago
I hope for a future where there are places that welcome these people, such as Charter Cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city
ArtDev 12y ago
No nationality means no identity or rights at all. I don't think any of us here knows what that means.
grecy 12y ago
I've always wondered if it's possible to not be a resident of any country... at least for tax purposes. I do a lot of traveling, and my situation is a little unique. I have 2 citizenships and another permanent residency. All three of those countries define you as a "resident for tax purposes" as spending over 1/2 a year (usually > 180 days) physically in that country. So what happens if I don't spend more than 1-2 months in any country, and all of those countries are not ones I have a permanent legal right to be in i.e. I'm just passing through as a tourist. What country am I a resident of if I keep that up? Last time I did it for 2 years, I'm planning to set off for at least 4 this time.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Yes it is, Jack Tramiel did it to avoid taxes. It helps if you are wealthy, then you can arrange for an appointment to the UN and get a UN Passport[1]. [1] https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-Issuance-of-UN-Travel-Documents.pdf https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-Issua...
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Yes, it's possible, but governments frown on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler
tokai 12y ago
I know a guy who's a stateless refugee. He is the son of African nobility exiled from a country/tribal-organization that wasn't recognized by the colonial countries when they divided Africa. He has to carry UN travel documents on his person at all time, stating his situation. Its a pain in the bum to be stateless.
raushany66 12y ago
Gurgaon Shifting Organizations Provide Excellent Relocating Services Packers and Movers in Mumbai or http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-mumbai/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-mumbai/ Packers and Movers in Hyderabad or http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ Packers and Movers in Pune or http://packersmoverspune.top3rd.in/ http://packersmoverspune.top3rd.in/

112 points by Turukawa 12y ago

bobcoat 12y ago

We all should be united I love the united world with united religion.LoL

SabinaHary 12y ago

Is it true?? Really???

gnu8 12y ago

Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born? This is in no way an argument for anarchism. Political subdivisions are necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their interests against the other subdivisions. But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. Nothing could be less logical than that.

JumpCrisscross 12y ago
> What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born? Those "rights and privileges" are enforced by physical means.
Retric 12y ago
Modern infrastructure (physical and social) can't handle massive population migrations. Consider a basic US example. City's deal with their homeless populations in different ways, but if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped. Further, cities can export their homeless by being overly draconian. Net result, it’s basically impossible to deal with the homeless problem at the local level. Now, scale that up to 2 Billion poor people around the world. PS: The tragedy of the commons applies to far more than just land. Closed national borders allow for significant social progress which is otherwise impossible as it would otherwise need to scale beyond what any country could possibly support.
- yeukhon 12y ago
  > if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped It's real. People move different state to live and to do business for various reasons but most are really the benefits that other states offer. There is a difference between nationalism (being loyal and passionate about one's nationality) and identity. This is particularly obvious when it comes to ethnicity and nationality. Do I identify myself as Chinese or Chinese American? As a Chinese do I identify myself as a Chinese-speaking HK person or a Chinese? Does one identifying oneself as American because of natural birth is the same as being a nationalist? When two New Yorkers ask each other "where are you from" is it significant to hear "I am from Queens", "I am from Bronx"? You don't hear two people say "I am human, an earthly being" because obviously they are human and it would be redundant to even say to each other as introduction. Context, audience matters. Having a nationality is one form of identity. Yet, some don't have that nationality tag like many here do. In China there is census register system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system). Basically you can live anywhere you want, but you will be treated as second-class resident outside of your birth/registered city/town. If you are wealthy, fine, if not, you are just as nobody as homeless. This including your education and social welfare. One of the key reasons for this is to manage population distribution and welfare distribution.
  - kleer001 12y ago
    Whoa, heavy duty! Thanks for the education about the Hukou system.
- DMac87 12y ago
  > City's deal with their homeless populations in different ways, but if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped. Further, cities can export their homeless by being overly draconian. I doubt the issue is as simple as I believe you intend - I don't think there are many examples of draconian cities eliminating homelessness via exports. I also don't think overly generous cities are swamped as much as you believe - size of city & climate are larger factors in homeless population size than generosity.
  - 12y ago
mod 12y ago
I'd like to continue to see varying rights & privileges, however I'd like it to be easier to choose which set you'd like to belong to (migrate). If I don't like your set of rules, I want to be able to go somewhere that has more agreeable ones. I think that's still nationality, but a different type of nationality (choice rather than birthright) than we currently have.
happyscrappy 12y ago
>Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. Then so is private property. What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line is the house they currently reside in. I am sure you won't mind a free for all at your home.
rhino369 12y ago
Nationality confers both rights and expectations. Those rights and privileges are paid for by taxation on US nationals.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Maybe not logical, but rights are a social construct. Nationality is a public recognition of 'here the social rules change'.
blfr 12y ago
Borders are essential. For groups, organizations, life itself. http://www.meltingasphalt.com/border-stories/ http://www.meltingasphalt.com/border-stories/
trhway 12y ago
>Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. as well as planet or galaxy quadrant or specific species one was born on or at. Many people/societies have evolved past the stage of the valley/tribe/village and now the most of the human species is at region and nationality state. Some advanced people were able to evolve past that. It requires letting go identification characteristics that are just given by birth and mentally moving on to what her or his truely personal identification is, ie. result of her/his personal efforts, like education, life/work experience, personal spiritual and intellectual development, etc... > What rational basis is there there isn't. Just our low evolutionary stage. Deeply xenophobic.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > It requires letting go identification characteristics that are just given by birth and mentally moving on to what her or his truely personal identification is, ie. result of her/his personal efforts, like education, life/work experience, personal spiritual and intellectual development, etc... I don't know what's so great about this. Is HN, a conglomeration of (mostly male) economic and educational elite, a "more evolved" state of social organization than a small-town church, which might draw in people from different economic walks of life?
  - trhway 12y ago
    > Is HN, a conglomeration of (mostly male) economic and educational elite, a "more evolved" state of social organization than a small-town church, which might draw in people from different economic walks of life? in my view mentally associating yourself with any group is exactly the root of the division "us vs. them (and us obviously better [whatever that means] than them)" and things go downhill from that. In that regard any "elite" group (self-identifying itself as such) is pretty much indistinguishable from a small-town church.
- dropit_sphere 12y ago
  > there isn't. Just our low evolutionary stage. Deeply xenophobic. This seems to be a deeply confused comment. What about evolution is "high" or "low"? Which is a higher form of life, the housefly, or the Neanderthal? Which one is still around? If aliens with FTL travel and psychic powers were to visit us and start wiping us out, would their xenophobia[1] mark them as a being at a "lower" evolutionary stage? If so, what is the use of such a classification?[2] Evolution is not always "up." For that matter, "up" isn't always "up." "The feedback loop never really ends, so a tenth year polysentience can be a priceless jewel or a psychotic wreck," ~Alpha Centauri [1]And if they were the ones wiping us out, who would be more "phobic" (afraid), us or them? [2]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvolutionaryLevels http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvolutionaryLevel...
cbd1984 12y ago
> But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. This is something to work towards, but it runs up against some pretty basic problems. For one thing, enforcement of those rights will entail war. For another, some rights are contrary to local culture. For example, the right to leave Islam is contrary to the culture of a region which wants sharia law. The right for certain people to get married and live together and have sex (both of which are relevant even if marriage goes away) is contrary to certain other religious cultures. Are those cultures wrong? Are you going to tell people their culture is wrong?
- DanBC 12y ago
  Yes, I am happy to tell those people they are wrong. Freedom of religion -and that includes no religion- is a right I defend. (Article 18 UDHR) Freedom to marry is sadly ambiguously worded in UNDHR But I defend the right for people of age -regardless of gender- to marry and have a family. (Article 16)
  - mc32 12y ago
    The think is that while most of us will agree with your point of view, in the end it's just a point if view. These opinions are based on our frameworks --they aren't either natural or universal. So someone else can have completely different framework not based on traditional western thinking and come up with a logical framework which contradicts yours. We're fortunate in that most people have agreement on some principles and that we don't have to figure out why it's undesirable to make theft perfectly legal or make assault perfectly legal foe everyone, bug all of this just happens to be convention. We don't arrive at that because 2+2=4.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      You onow these are in the Universal Declaratin of Human Rights, right? And that these are things that many countries have agreed are human rights and are things that they should work to? And that they're now part of international law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_... And so, while they are just shot some people made up they have a bit more going for them than that.
aikah 12y ago
> Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. Then why don't you give up yours? > What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born? Same can be said about private property. What the rational basis. Are you ready to give up the concept of ownership? I'd be glad to settle in your home, eat your food and poop in your toilets without flushing. > This is in no way an argument for anarchism. > Political subdivisions are necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their interests against the other subdivisions. But that's exactly what nations are. > But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. But you just said Political subdivisions are necessary ...
pjc50 12y ago
This is very much the EU approach of human rights rather than "constitutional" rights. They apply to immigrants, and this annoys the UK government immensely. There is also the Schengen right to reside in any EU country. The long term way this pans out is less clear. People don't lose their ethnicity when they change nationality. You end up with irridentists and conflicts, such as the "green line" across Cyprus.
- avar 12y ago
  You and mortehu upthread have mentioned Schengen in the context of being allowed to reside in any country within the area. That's not what Schengen is about, you're thinking of the European Economic Area. Schengen is a customs union which allows passport-free travel within its borders, but the EEA is the area you can freely migrate within.
cjcole 12y ago
I'll skip over the surface contradiction [1]. I believe that you're not really arguing against nations (or states) but against "exclusion". I think you're arguing that there may be political divisions, but that the individuals themselves should be the sole arbiters of which political division they (for lack of a better word) belong to at any given time. Any political subdivision should not be able to exclude someone. Is that fair? [1] The surface contradiction is that "nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept" while "political subdivisions are necessary". This apparent contradiction can be resolved in a few ways but I believe I get what you intended. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
rayiner 12y ago
You're confusing cause and effect. Both rights and borders are effects of the same cause: people banding together to defend each other. There's no rights in the state of nature--when a pack of dolphins kill a porpoise for fun, no rights have been violated--they arise only to the extent that people agree to use violence under certain conditions to protect members of their group. Borders are simply symptoms of the fact that groups of people naturally defend contiguous areas of physical territory, within which they undertake the obligation of enforcing "rights."
Torgo 12y ago
The benefit of nations is that there is not a universally agreed-upon set of values.
arca_vorago 12y ago
I think this is a dangerous attitude to take, and please allow me to explain why. Really it boils down to decentralization vs centralization. You mention that people are "excluded" from rights and privileges, but the problem with the globalist view you espouse is that by lumping in a nation and it's people with the world you remove the political lines in a meaningful form. National Sovereignty is the real issue at hand here, but it's a sensitive subject that not very many people like to touch. I've heard some fairly powerful beltway people reference it as dead, but if that's true our entire government is operating under a fallacy, there are some big implications here and I would love to see more academic research (as in, if anyone has any links I would appreciate them) on the subject. I do think the lessons of the internet are important here though, namely that if you try to claim no nationality, peoples nationality becomes Earth, and a global government along with it. I want to go the opposite direction, less federal power, more state power, more local power (constitutionally restricted of course). The only oath I ever swore was to protect and defend the Constitution, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and watch America be Europeanized without an intellectual fight, because my forefathers fought hard to establish the freedoms I have here that still don't exist anywhere else in the world. Yes I'm aware of the other countries higher levels of "actual" freedom, particularly the nordic ones, but I think our idealistic vision is still a superior one. For example, Vincent Reynouard of France was recently sentenced to two years in jail for his non-violent historical opinions regarding the Holocaust. I tend to side with Voltaire on free speech, apparently the French don't. These same issues are also readily apparent in the TPP. I think it is a good microcosm of the kind of affect on nations you will get with a reduction of nationalism, eg, equally exploited populace by a supranational oligarchy.
powertower 12y ago
That's like saying families is an obsolete concept and anyone should be able to come into your family and get all the benefits and rights and privileges as your born children get (including all the love and attention you give them, the twice a year dentist visit, breakfast, etc). Also rights aren't fundamental in nature, they only exist because groups of people come together, produce/work, and that work provides the benefits you call "rights". Others just consume those rights. And given that resources are limited, and that highly advanced societies require highly advanced skills, there is no "logic" in flooding countries with seekers of benefits who are mostly not going to add any value to that society for 3 generations while costing the resources of 10. They will simply consume.
- kleer001 12y ago
  > That's like saying families is an obsolete That's like saying a tennis ball and a planet are the same because they're both round. Scale, you're missing the scale of it.
  - powertower 12y ago
    > That's like saying a tennis ball and a planet are the same because they're both round. What is this random analogy and what does it have to do with mine? > Scale, you're missing the scale of it. The number of tennis balls that would fit in the volume of this planet has 25 digits in it. So no, it's not even close to the scale of anything. And what does being round have to do with it? I can't even figure out what your argument is.
    - sweettea 12y ago
      You're saying families are like nations, in that $arbitraryPerson can't just "come into your family/nation and get all the benefits and rights and privileges as your born children/citizens get". They're saying that the difference in scale makes the comparison invalid; a nation is, say, 8 orders of magnitude larger than a family, and, similarly, the earth is 25 orders of magnitude larger than a tennis ball. For the same reason that comparing the earth and tennis balls doesn't work because of scale, comparing a nation and families doesn't work because of scale.
kleer001 12y ago
Tragically this world is not ruled by reason, but rhetoric.
vacri 12y ago
What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges... 'Rights' and 'privileges' are just as abstract a concept as 'nationality'. Not to mention that they all rely on underlying 'culture' - different nations, rights, and privileges are all seen in different cultures.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Perhaps it should be, but it isn't - rather it's the norm of how we do things. It'll be obsolete when you have a passport and nobody cares about it or the country that issued it other than nostalgic hipsters and antiquarians.

spiritplumber 12y ago

almost 8 billion too few. nations should be something you subscribe to, because you like their culture, are willing to learn the local language, and so on. beyond that, pay taxes to whatever community you live in (infrastructure use fee).

Sevzi 12y ago
Sure thing--one more to be wiped away when the Singularity hits.
cjcole 12y ago
Would nations be required to accept all subscriptions? If yes, on what basis and on whose enforcement?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
MichaelGG 12y ago
That's sorta like a lot of the "Hispanic" immigrant community in the US, isn't it? Many still fiercely identify as their home country, etc., but end up paying local US taxes. But if nationality enforced where they had to live, nearly all of them would drop it to be a US national in a second.
- mvc 12y ago
  I don't think that's unique to the Hispanic community. I'm from Scotland and our tourism industry thrives on Americans who identify as Scottish or Irish even after many generations have passed. I would imagine this is true for Germany and Italy too.

RodericDay 12y ago

We readily acknowledge the benefits of tearing down all the barriers for capital to move between countries, but the ones for humans seem to be sticky.

cbd1984 12y ago
Capital can't come bringing ebola or polio.
- jfoutz 12y ago
  I don't understand your point. Didn't capital come with smallpox? Capital intensive processes always come with unknowable risk. Coal power means coal mines, which for some people means black lung. Air travel means death by plane crashes. High voltage power lines mean death by electrocution. Overall, we're better off - but it's silly to claim capital infusion is automagically harmless. Again, perhaps this isn't the argument you're making. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean?
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    My point is, foreign investment can't make you sick, at least not directly. People, on the other hand, can.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> We readily acknowledge the benefits of tearing down all the barriers for capital to move between countries, but the ones for humans seem to be sticky. That's because the same interests that support free movement of capital are served by limited mobility for persons (in the both roles as "consumer" and as "labor"), and those interests are disproportionately powerful in their influence over policy (and the discussions of policy issues in the mass media.)

smackfu 12y ago

Here's an interesting site if you want to read more about statelessness in various countries: http://www.nationalityforall.org/regions http://www.nationalityforall.org/regions

Sevzi 12y ago

Well, I have no race, so perhaps don't see this as big as a problem.

ArtDev 12y ago
Let me guess, you have never been to a third-world country?
- Sevzi 12y ago
  Sure--the one I share half my genes with.

aikah 12y ago

Who forced the concept of nations upon Africans at first place? Who created most Africans and middle Eastern countries? Sure Africans didn't, but Hélène, France, your country sure did well by fucking up these places.Anybody can go see a map. Countries with almost perfect linear shapes , putting tribes and ethnical groups that have nothing to do with each others in the same country, or putting the tribe in 2 different states. Then writing a blog post complaining about how Africa is fucked up ? Edit: and of course, most of the comments here have nothing to do with the article, which is specifically about the situation in Africa. Nobody read it obviously.

ptaipale 12y ago
We can blame France (and others) for colonialism, and for the unnatural borders that African nations have, but remember, the actual existence of African nations is still due to the people there wanting to have nations of their own. In Africa, this process largely happened during 1950-1970. No one "forced" the concept of nations upon Africans, except by setting an example for what nation states can achieve. The time of colonialism was largely the opposite of having nations. It was the nations that overthrew colonialists.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  They haven't got the choice of borders. They could only use colonial borders, and those were counterproductive for a healthy nation. Sure they wanted nation states, but they got crappy ones. And it could not go much better. Their failure is rooted in past outside their political control.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    Borders of nations can be changed by mutual agreement. Unfortunately the national leaders of African nations have been willing to keep these arbitrary borders, and much of the time only the other way is applied, i.e. war. War is also how the European national borders have been decided. In the U.S., the state borders are remarkably similar to African borders: straight lines along a particular meridian or circle of latitude. So is the Canadian border.

sytse 12y ago

I hope for a future where there are places that welcome these people, such as Charter Cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city

ArtDev 12y ago

No nationality means no identity or rights at all. I don't think any of us here knows what that means.

grecy 12y ago

I've always wondered if it's possible to not be a resident of any country... at least for tax purposes. I do a lot of traveling, and my situation is a little unique. I have 2 citizenships and another permanent residency. All three of those countries define you as a "resident for tax purposes" as spending over 1/2 a year (usually > 180 days) physically in that country. So what happens if I don't spend more than 1-2 months in any country, and all of those countries are not ones I have a permanent legal right to be in i.e. I'm just passing through as a tourist. What country am I a resident of if I keep that up? Last time I did it for 2 years, I'm planning to set off for at least 4 this time.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Yes it is, Jack Tramiel did it to avoid taxes. It helps if you are wealthy, then you can arrange for an appointment to the UN and get a UN Passport[1]. [1] https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-Issuance-of-UN-Travel-Documents.pdf https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-Issua...
ForHackernews 12y ago
Yes, it's possible, but governments frown on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler

tokai 12y ago

I know a guy who's a stateless refugee. He is the son of African nobility exiled from a country/tribal-organization that wasn't recognized by the colonial countries when they divided Africa. He has to carry UN travel documents on his person at all time, stating his situation. Its a pain in the bum to be stateless.

raushany66 12y ago

Gurgaon Shifting Organizations Provide Excellent Relocating Services Packers and Movers in Mumbai or http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-mumbai/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-mumbai/ Packers and Movers in Hyderabad or http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ http://www.expert5th.in/packers-and-movers-hyderabad/ Packers and Movers in Pune or http://packersmoverspune.top3rd.in/ http://packersmoverspune.top3rd.in/