illegal aliens

[Caid Ivik]

What kind of borders are you promoting to abolish then? Borders of heart, of acceptance of a stranger kin? Such things aren't subject to politics ;)  I'm not needing to show reasons for preserving the current system of borders, because I find them useful. Korean argument has a point - there the borders don't create a rules of cooperation but isolate them; what isn't fruitful in that case. However, if there are no rules, there is a lot of space left to be "solved" by violence. I expect from you to describe an alternative, which would include an unilateral abolishment of borders. Can this happen without a serious effect on sovereignty of the nation?

[Sneakgab]

''"If everybody" scenarios are wishes, not theories''

Well the statement remains true. Not to nitpick but it's not really a wish.

''What kind of borders are you promoting to abolish then? Borders of heart, of acceptance of a stranger kin?''

I think that he is basically speaking about allowing free movement of individuals (within restrictions obviously) around the world. All other elements of borders would remain. So basically, borders would be left exactly the same with the sole difference being that your civilian status would no longer make a difference. What would determine your stay and conditions would be other things. eg: If you wish to move to an already over-populated country that would be prohibited.

Your rights would just no be dependent on civilian status.

''However, if there are no rules, there is a lot of space left to be "solved" by violence.''

What meaning does law have without threat of punishment? If you refuse this punishment it will be brought upon you by force. If there were no rules, resolution of quarrels and whatnot would come via force. There is nothing special about law, it is just an organized social contract which has it's ''contractees'' held to it by force.

Besides no borders does not mean no rules. A single world nation could still have rules.

''I expect from you to describe an alternative, which would include an unilateral abolishment of borders. Can this happen without a serious effect on sovereignty of the nation?''

Well, complete abolishment of borders would probably leave the ideas of nations and their sovereignty meaningless. Incomplete abolishment by rendering how long one has stayed in a country or whether or not he was born there doesn't seem like it would have to much of a terrible effect. Goverments generally already let their people leave their country at will. They also generally decide who enters. This decision would now forgo irrelevant factors in favor of serving whatever motive the government holds. Of course, inspiring nationalism and whatnot might be such a motive and hence the old laws would apply, but this system still allows for such oddities it is just no longer bound by them.

One alternative is voluntary co-operation with no borders. Think of something like a state ruling the entire world with this rule being done via direct democracy. Of course the voluntary part is what makes it unlikely.

[SWkwisatz]

What kind of borders are you promoting to abolish then?

I thought that was clear? I want to erradicate national borders and the idea of making us feel as a part of something by making an

[Caid Ivik]

Borders are kind of rules: rules of organization of the space. They are set because human societies are differently developed on different places. This isn't specific for international relations, it has perhaps even more meaning on the regional and urban level. An industrial quarter has another demands than a village of vineyards, also a historical site is differently managed than a new one. States differ similarly with their jurisdictions, priorities, that's why they are selective in immigrants. This isn't implying that the foreigners ("they") are worse, they just may not be needed.

[Sneakgab]

''Borders are kind of rules: rules of organization of the space.''

Even if they are a kind of rule, abolishing all of rules of a certain type obviously isn't abolishing all rules. Even then, borders aren't really rules, they are just terms for rules. I guess you mean border type rules as opposed to borders. I apologize in advance if that's just useless nit-picking.

Anyway, I don't think that abolishing all border rules is the issue here. I think the point in contention is the abolition of one person having greater rights on a piece of land by sole virtue of his birth there (or other means of citizenship).

Of course, designating sections and whatnot is fine and just optimization planning. Being selective on immigrants for that reason is fine as well. It's just that an immigrant who is identical to a citizen in all regards excepting his citizenship should basically be treated the same.

[Caid Ivik]

Border-type rules would be a redundant category. Borders themselves are of a social character as well. Their function in the legal system is that of defining a spatial extent of the effect, which laws may create. Where are no definitions, there is no clear effect. I would buy a piece of land, but what is it for, when the treaty isn't clearly protected by law? Then I can only buy a gun to keep the foreign settlers off and we're back in middle ages. Also, by birth I enter a certain legal space, which the foreigner does not. When being raised there, I face these rules, unlike the one who grows elsewhere. I have thus a better predisposition to deal with the rules when I grow up.

[SWkwisatz]

I was going to say something very similar to Sneakgab, I agree that:

Even if they are a kind of rule, abolishing all of rules of a certain type obviously isn't abolishing all rules.

and,

Anyway, I don't think that abolishing all border rules is the issue here. I think the point in contention is the abolition of one person having greater rights on a piece of land by sole virtue of his birth there (or other means of citizenship).

and,

Of course, designating sections and whatnot is fine and just optimization planning.

They are set because human societies are differently developed on different places.

If by

[Caid Ivik]

Your personal interests, slang, political orientation and friendships don't have an effect on the overall development of society. They don't have an effect on natural resources, law (including attitude towards immigration mafias), historical or cultural predispositions, shape of settlements, mostly spread diseases or other factors which make the difference between northern Sweden and Thailand much more complex than that between north and south of the country. I agree that humans are all equal...at least equally bound to the paradigm of their growth, communal predispositions, culture and citizenship.

[Sneakgab]

''Border-type rules would be a redundant category. Borders themselves are of a social character as well. Their function in the legal system is that of defining a spatial extent of the effect, which laws may create. Where are no definitions, there is no clear effect.

Well that's obvious. I was going to post about borders being basically lines to be referred to in a law just as you have symbols for reference as well. However, I didn't because I saw this as obvious. Regardless, abolishing a symbol does not abolish all rules. It can make SOME rules meaningless though. Abolishing the word cat will not render all rules useless... it will only affect rules regarding cats.

'' I would buy a piece of land, but what is it for, when the treaty isn't clearly protected by law? Then I can only buy a gun to keep the foreign settlers off and we're back in middle ages.''

This is not an issue, since it has already been states that we are not discussing complete abolition of boundaries, borders, e.t.c

'' Also, by birth I enter a certain legal space, which the foreigner does not. When being raised there, I face these rules, unlike the one who grows elsewhere. I have thus a better predisposition to deal with the rules when I grow up.''

This, like all other MEANINGFUL factors, would be taken into account anyway. Eg: If the people of nation A are to xenophobic (just an example, not a point I'm arguing about anything) to tolerate immigrants... so much so, that said immigrants arrival in country would immediately and definitely herald expensive rioting, then these immigrants would not be allowed entrance BECAUSE of this COST not due to the irrelevant location of their birth place.

Of course, their is an ''income'' to be considered in just having nationality based laws in such a country that should be considered in it's abolition. However, it would seem a bit unlikely for the relative cost of forgoing this ''income'' to exceed the benefits of fully controlled immigration (ie: controlled without nationality-based restrictions). I guess it is definitely possible though.

[SWkwisatz]

Your personal interests, slang, political orientation and friendships don't have an effect on the overall development of society.

Nope, and I haven't said so either.

Your personal interests, slang, political orientation and friendships don't have an effect on the overall development of society. They don't have an effect on natural resources, law (including attitude towards immigration mafias), historical or cultural predispositions, shape of settlements, mostly spread diseases or other factors

I'm not talking about personal views really. I'm talking about changing basic views and ideas, and with that totaly changing the idea of personal interests and so on.

Abolishing nation-states and replacing it with a global order (as mentioned before) will most probably change the view of natural resources and historical or cultural predispositions.

With changing the view of natural resources I mean that just because you are born at a place that has a multitude of something it doesn

[Caid Ivik]

''Border-type rules would be a redundant category. Borders themselves are of a social character as well. Their function in the legal system is that of defining a spatial extent of the effect, which laws may create. Where are no definitions, there is no clear effect.

Well that's obvious. I was going to post about borders being basically lines to be referred to in a law just as you have symbols for reference as well. However, I didn't because I saw this as obvious. Regardless, abolishing a symbol does not abolish all rules. It can make SOME rules meaningless though. Abolishing the word cat will not render all rules useless... it will only affect rules regarding cats.

Border isn't a symbol but a treaty. It is a cultural entity with more than just an orientational function. Or are you referring to the mere word "border" or some cartographic representation of it? Is your idea that by a mere linguistic change in symbol we may change also the object being denoted by it? In law you don't have just some variables with no meaning, which can be interchanged by will. In formal logic one can play as he wishes, but how in law you want to "scratch" a word?

I'm not talking about personal views really. I'm talking about changing basic views and ideas, and with that totaly changing the idea of personal interests and so on.

Abolishing nation-states and replacing it with a global order (as mentioned before) will most probably change the view of natural resources and historical or cultural predispositions.

With changing the view of natural resources I mean that just because you are born at a place that has a multitude of something it doesn

[SWkwisatz]

I can share the bread made here with people starving elsewhere, and if I don't want to, the "global order" may force me to do so. However, the "global order" may not change the natural law of breads getting dry and thus losing value, when they are transported too much. Yes, it really could help elsewhere, if it could be transported there in time, but the problem is that it sometimes can't be done physically so. There are even more contrasting limits to global distribution in medicine, for example. These are also not the resources but products. What we find here a good resource for getting products is not necessarily seen so elsewhere.

First bread isn

[Caid Ivik]

Nature of bread had been mentioned. I was reacting on "because you are born at a place that has a multitude of something it doesn

[SWkwisatz]

Nature of bread had been mentioned.

Hmm

[Caid Ivik]

You think that abundance of natural resources is more important than abundance of products? It seemed to me when you speak of "abundance" and "needs" that you don't mean abundance of mere means or a need for it. Is tool a resource or a product for you? Also I didn't speak of natural resources only, but also of other things which I don't need to repeat, but still consider it not-transportable, and thus bound to a certain region. What I tried to imply is, that one region does value another resources than another one. Let's say, a merchant navy. If Slovakia, being an in-land country, has no need for ocean ships, why should we participate on a hypothetical collective property?

[Sneakgab]

Caid, I don't think anyone is proposing uniformity (of resources or most things) for the countries. The abolition of borders does not necessitate this. Resources would be distributed with optimization in mind.

As for non-transportable goods... well, I can't think of too many examples right now, but that is not say that there aren't any non-transportable (or difficult and/or costly/ and/or with low chance of successfully being transported intact and/or whatever resources).

However, having or not having borders makes no difference considering this problem. It isn't like eliminating borders makes some goods non-transportable. If a region cannot produce or import a good that is useful to it then that problem exists regardless of borders.

Of course, it is not even the abolition of borders that we are currently discussing in the first place.

[SWkwisatz]

You think that abundance of natural resources is more important than abundance of products?

You can make products with natural resources

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I tried to find some examples, where nature of a region determines a creation of borders; examples, which make it specific and autonomous toward the others. For if you have a self-sufficient region, then it defines its borders in order to protect this self-sufficiency from any external abuse. That doesn't prevent cooperation between states, but rather controls it - preventing anarchy (like that in case of for example eastern Congo) and exploitation (like Russia did in 1950s). So much to the idea of an abolishment of national borders.

And if the abolishment isn't willed; why then should we rule only the transport of resources and not migration? Humans are often migrating when they feel to be a useful "resource" themselves, plus they bring needs for a specific resource to the country. And thus the both border-based regulations have a strong relation.

[SWkwisatz]

Well, I tried to find some examples, where nature of a region determines a creation of borders; examples, which make it specific and autonomous toward the others.

Ah ok, then I see. But, as mentioned before, the thing is that I don

[Caid Ivik]

An idea of private property as a fundamental natural right was always a political question, for example stoic Panaetius defended it, after Tiberius Gracchus started to promote an older stoic idea of human equality. And philosophers were promoting defence of the territory even before Aristotle.  I don't have the exact text of Panaetius' arguments, but for myself I can say that my growth within a certain context does mean that I can handle the parts of these context better than people who didn't. It perhaps doesn't form some metaphysical right, but it forms a competence. Competence is for me of a higher importance than mere right, because it prevents the resources of going to waste or available for thieves. It is hard to say what is first - the competence, right or the power, which is used to support the claim. But one can't be sacrificed for the other.

With neutral waters it also isn't as ideal as you think. There were always military navies securing the trade routes. Northern ocean is becoming a place of national interests. It can change and Russians can leave it for good of all mankind; it is just very unlikely.

And similarly with collectiveness of resources on a global scale. That's sit venia verbo a bullshit, we do have a global economy, but the most of capital is in hands of certain companies, which would not share a grain if it wasn't profitable for them.

[SWkwisatz]

An idea of private property as a fundamental natural right was always a political question, for example stoic Panaetius defended it, after Tiberius Gracchus started to promote an older stoic idea of human equality.

Well I am not all that good at stoic philosophy and the view of property, but the idea I have of Panaetius when it comes to private property is from Cicero's <i>De Officiis</i>. Anyway in this source it says

[Caid Ivik]

He doesn't seem to speak there for Panaetius (or at least for the quotation in Pohlenz I'm trying now to find in a primary form). If we looked on the idea that "although his reasons are rooted in natural law it differs immensely from Locke

[SWkwisatz]

He doesn't seem to speak there for Panaetius

[Caid Ivik]

Question may be whether there is any natural law or not. It seemed to me you are defending the position that to say of a certain law/right it was "natural" is just a rhetorical strategy to support it; or an intermediate position that a natural law is the one, which is commonly recognized (btw similarly as Cicero thought). In the first, natural basis of a right for private property is questionable (as any), in the second it is out of question as far as it doesn't concern majority (like eg in case of agrarian/financial reforms). Then there is a possibility of a truly natural law, which determines formulation of human law in one way or another. But if we take this position, and if all human societies know territories and properties, is it possible to say that right to own something is unnatural?

[SWkwisatz]

Question may be whether there is any natural law or not.

I don