NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously. We do we so rabidly defend these imaginary lines? Why do we insist that people remain separated from one another based on arbitrary scribblings on a map? Why are some people, by function of where they happen to be born, able to cross borders with little difficulty, while for others, it is nearly an impossibility? Borders don't really seem to exist for the globetrotting elite of the West, but for the vast majority of the world, these intangible boundaries are as limiting as real walls.

You would think, in this age of global capitalism, where there is a pressing desire for open borders in terms of the production and distribution of goods, that we would also want to fling open the barriers to human movement. Are people really afraid that the world's poor will flock to one 'rich' nation, and drag it down into poverty? Don't your theories of supply and demand apply to human movement too? Wouldn't things at one point even out?

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.

It's that pesky "self-determination" thing. :(

I'd like to see a world without borders, myself. Is it gonna happen? Not anytime soon...

Borders to a nation are as walls to a home.

You may like your neighbors okay, and your friends and family are always welcome.

But do you want some guy just coming in off the street to use the bathroom?

Boarders to a nation are as walls to a home.

You may like your neighbors okay, and your friends and family are always welcome.

But do you want some guy just coming in off the street to use the bathroom?

Ugh. It wouldn't be anything like that. Once things settle in, it would be like going from state to state, really.

Borders exist because all land is owned by nations - land "ownership" by individuals is by permission of the government.

Absolutely nothing

Borders to a nation are as walls to a home.

You may like your neighbors okay, and your friends and family are always welcome.

But do you want some guy just coming in off the street to use the bathroom?

Er, no. Walls insulate the home and protect it from undue heat loss and environmental damage. They make it a house instead of a shelter. The analogy doesn't really work.

A better comparison would be picket fences... which are generally equally as useless as borders.

Borders to a nation are as walls to a home.

You may like your neighbors okay, and your friends and family are always welcome.

But do you want some guy just coming in off the street to use the bathroom?
There is that idea that SOME people are welcome, while others are not. What are we basing that criterion on? The random happenstance of birth. Not really a logical reason for keeping people 'out'.

Ugh. It wouldn't be anything like that. Once things settle in, it would be like going from state to state, really.

Er?? It'd be exactly like that... why live in Honduras when you can just go to Northern California or British Columbia?

Until there is a single world government, it won't happen. And since most Canadians (at least here on NS!) won't even join the US (which are two of the most similar nations on Earth!), I don't ever see it happening...

There is that idea that SOME people are welcome, while others are not. What are we basing that criterion on? The random happenstance of birth. Not really a logical reason for keeping people 'out'.

Go invite 50 homeless into your home and see what happens. That's all I'm saying.

Er, no. Walls insulate the home and protect it from undue heat loss and environmental damage. They make it a house instead of a shelter. The analogy doesn't really work.

A better comparison would be picket fences... which are generally equally as useless as borders.

Walls keep people from your possessions. That's why they're not transparent. You could have a 100% glass house with just a room or two of solid walls... but no one does. People like privacy, but they VALUE security.

Er?? It'd be exactly like that... why live in Honduras when you can just go to Northern California or British Columbia?

That's the point. People shouldn't have to stay in a world of shit just because that's where they were born.

Borders exist because all land is owned by nations - land "ownership" by individuals is by permission of the government.
You are assuming that the concept of 'owning land' is right. Or truly possible. You may have the title to a scrap of land...but it is only your philosophy, your BELIEF that this title really means anything that gives it value. Saying, "This is my land" truly means nothing. You can't take it with you when you die. That land is no more yours that it is the tree's the river's, the sky's.

The nation state is a human construct, and so are borders. Which means, humans can deconstruct them.

That's the point. People shouldn't have to stay in a world of shit just because that's where they were born.

Yes, they can move while still respecting borders.

Er?? It'd be exactly like that... why live in Honduras when you can just go to Northern California or British Columbia? But that's not the analogy you gave. You were talking about using someone's bathroom without permission. People from Honduras aren't going to move to Northern California or British Columbia just to piss all over the place and contribute nothing further.

There doesn't need to be a single world government for a borderless world to be possible. A loose network of trade and governance would be ideal...with the directly democratic participation of all people in a given area.

And the fear that the global 'poor' would flood a rich nation and bring it down is a temporary possibility. There would be ebb and flow. At one point, the 'poor' would no longer find that 'rich' nation as viable as before, and they would move on. Not like a plague of locusts, devouring everything in their path...but like people freely travelling to locations that best suited their needs and talents.

Go invite 50 homeless into your home and see what happens. That's all I'm saying.
You are assuming that open borders would mean an invasion. Short of sudden, and unexpected migrations, which generally result in temporary camps, open borders would NOT mean that suddenly everyone in the world was ABLE to travel...or even willing to. Open borders doesn't mean a plane ticket in your pocket.

That's the point. People shouldn't have to stay in a world of shit just because that's where they were born.

Then they must make their world better.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I'm not about to let the quality life here suffer because of the lack of quality of life over there.

Walls keep people from your possessions. That's why they're not transparent. You could have a 100% glass house with just a room or two of solid walls... but no one does. People like privacy, but they VALUE security.
And what security to borders really get you? The security of knowing that your 'possessions' will remain yours? When your own people can easily divest you of those possessions? Borders don't ensure privacy. They don't ensure security. So what are they really there for?

But that's not the analogy you gave. You were talking about using someone's bathroomo without permission. People from Honduras aren't going to move to Northern California or British Columbia just to piss all over the place and contribute nothing further.


Still smells like false dichotomy. There are other ways into a country besides violating its laws by disrespecting its borders.

Borders to a nation are as walls to a home.
And what is a "nation"?

Seriously: What makes a group of people a "nation"? Are the citizens of the USA a nation? The Catalan speaking inhabitants of eastern Spain and southern France? The inhabitants of India? All people whose ancestors spoke Cree shortly before the Whites came? The natives of Zimbabwe?

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.
That's odd, I had no idea you were a libertarian capitalist. Your position on opening borders for both goods and people is the same as that of the US Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/).

Yes, they can move while still respecting borders.
No. SOME people can move and still 'respect borders'. As a middle class Canadian, the world is open to me. Borders are as easy to traverse as a plane ticket and a passport. Not so for the vast majority of people who have neither the money, nor the nationality of privelege that I do. I could move to almost any country in the world with minimal difficulty. Some people can't even leave their province because of border restrictions. Why? What makes me safer, more special, and more 'respectful' of borders than they?

You are assuming that open borders would mean an invasion. Short of sudden, and unexpected migrations, which generally result in temporary camps, open borders would NOT mean that suddenly everyone in the world was ABLE to travel...or even willing to. Open borders doesn't mean a plane ticket in your pocket.

That's exactly what it would be. You seriously think that people wouldn't be fleeing North Korea by the tens of thousands? How about Cuba? Sudan? Zaire?

Right now, life on Earth is good in the 1st world, tolerable in the 2nd, bad in the 3rd and miserable in the 4th (Darfur in Sudan, for example).

No, it doesn't. But it doesn't take much to get onto a ship. Heck, some gov'ts might even start CHARTERING ships to get rid of people. Or maybe Greenpeace or other orgs would.

It'd be an world-economic-shattering chaos.

That's the point. People shouldn't have to stay in a world of shit just because that's where they were born.
how much are you willing to give up to share with the less fortunate of the world? are you willing to lose your job or to only be able to make a few dollars an hour so that everyone in your family has to work and scramble to keep a roof over your heads? are you willing to have 75 kids in each of your classes so that everyone can get an education?

there would be many prices to pay if we opened our borders. how much are you willing to pay?

And what is a "nation"?

Seriously: What makes a group of people a "nation"? Are the citizens of the USA a nation? The Catalan speaking inhabitants of eastern Spain and southern France? The inhabitants of India? All people whose ancestors spoke Cree shortly before the Whites came? The natives of Zimbabwe?

Ok, I used nation instead of "country". My bad.

And what security to borders really get you? The security of knowing that your 'possessions' will remain yours? When your own people can easily divest you of those possessions? Borders don't ensure privacy. They don't ensure security. So what are they really there for?

They're there because nations have the right to provide for the general welfare, which in some cases includes economic controls, which may include regulating labor. They're there because some nations derive their power from citizens, who may elect to uphold their culture and traditions by preventing another nation from washing it off the earth. And so on..

You have a very noble idea, you are not the first one to come up with it, i'll tell you why borders exist:

There will always be nationalist who think they are better than other nation or think they are stealing their jobs and their land and polluting their blood.

If all that you wish became true and borders were deleted, the "new order" wouldn't last long, it is difficult to imagine a japanese saying "Sushi is an invent from the human being to the human being, it wasn't invented by the former japanese..." or a french saying "Baguette is a product of the new unified world, former french were just nationalist asshole..."

I could go on and on and would never finish but that's how it is in today's world, human being will always have borders, from the little fence in your garden to the great wall in china.

how much are you willing to give up to share with the less fortunate of the world? are you willing to lose your job or to only be able to make a few dollars an hour so that everyone in your family has to work and scramble to keep a roof over your heads? are you willing to have 75 kids in each of your classes so that everyone can get an education?

there would be many prices to pay if we opened our borders. how much are you willing to pay?

Well, you're not even considering increased taxes to compensate. And, look at it this way --- I don't even have a job, so I don't give a shit either way.

No. SOME people can move and still 'respect borders'. As a middle class Canadian, the world is open to me. Borders are as easy to traverse as a plane ticket and a passport. Not so for the vast majority of people who have neither the money, nor the nationality of privelege that I do. I could move to almost any country in the world with minimal difficulty. Some people can't even leave their province because of border restrictions. Why? What makes me safer, more special, and more 'respectful' of borders than they?

This varies from nation to nation. Canada favors the rich in its immigration policy, while rich and poor alike can immigrate to America through the same application process. Trade agreements allowing passage and processes for citizenship are two entirely different things. NAFTA doesn't give a Canadian greater priority when moving to the U.S. than a qualified Guatemalan has.

Then they must make their world better.

I'm not anti-immigration. But I'm not about to let the quality life here suffer because of the lack of quality of life over there.

1) You are blaming the 'poor' quality of life in some nations on the people that happened to be born there.

2) You are taking credit for the 'good' quality of life in your nation, where you happened to be born.

3) Neither scenario is correct. You are no more responsible for the wealth you were born into than others are for the poverty they were born into.

4) You assume that open borders would mean poverty for you and your nation. Why? You are equating freedom of movement with the theft of riches...is your accident of birthplace really your only advantage?

5) Many people move temporarily to find better economic conditions, but few people in this world truly want to forever leave their place of birth. Reasons for leaving are usually negative...violence, poverty, lack of opportunity...but were those factors no longer an issue, (and to be clear, open borders alone are not going to make that true), people will likely choose to remain where they have ties to the land, culture, and people.

And what security to borders really get you? The security of knowing that your 'possessions' will remain yours? When your own people can easily divest you of those possessions? Borders don't ensure privacy. They don't ensure security. So what are they really there for?

I am mostly secure in knowing (for example) that within the US, it is very, very unlikely that I will be beaten for not growing a beard. I know that as a citizen that my taxes are spent on things for the common good (roads, national defense, school lunches, whatever) for people doing the same.

That's why illegal aliens are a scourge, and why having no borders would be even worse: how would one govern and make people pay their share?

Borders most certainly ensure security: has a militia ever come through and burned your town out like in Darfur? How about starved them like in Somalia? Sent the whole populace into the the fields ala Cambodia?
Note that anytime something like this happens, it's been LIMIITED to within a country.

Still smells like false dichotomy. There are other ways into a country besides violating its laws by disrespecting its borders.
That's not the point at all. In a borderless world there would be no immigration, just migration. Not all immigration laws are equal, nor do they give equal opportunities to all. Immigration laws are in place to keep people out, not to let them in.

You are assuming that the concept of 'owning land' is right. Or truly possible. You may have the title to a scrap of land...but it is only your philosophy, your BELIEF that this title really means anything that gives it value. Saying, "This is my land" truly means nothing. You can't take it with you when you die. That land is no more yours that it is the tree's the river's, the sky's.
I'm saying that the government rules an area of land. The people it governs are the people who happen to live in that land. It is the area itself that defines what the government control. Which sucks.

The nation state is a human construct, and so are borders. Which means, humans can deconstruct them.

Good.

-snip-

I agree with every last one of your points, however... I have found it useless to argue with these "people". You can't change the mind of somebody who never had a consience in the first place.

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.
That's odd, I had no idea you were a libertarian capitalist. Your position on opening borders for both goods and people is the same as that of the US Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/).

Well, you're not even considering increased taxes to compensate. And, look at it this way --- I don't even have a job, so I don't give a shit either way.

The sort of tax increases that would be required to go letting everybody in would be crippling. Why should people be obliged to pay for the joys of an immigrant colonisation?

Besides, you forget that a lot of countries don't want any more immigrants in their country on cultural grounds. I certainly wouldn't want the sort damage to our way of life that would come with unrestricted immigration. Why should these places be forced to accept immigration when their population are largely hostile to the idea?

That's odd, I had no idea you were a libertarian capitalist.
Capitalist...hmm...not willingly, no, but I don't see capitalism going away, so I work with it. As well, I find it amusing that the true free market capitalist rarely agree with open borders for people. So I point it out:). In my ideal world, people, ALL people would be actively invovled in the political, economic and social spheres. That doesn't necessarily mean every system will be capitalistic.

That's not the point at all. In a borderless world there would be no immigration, just migration. Not all immigration laws are equal, nor do they give equal opportunities to all. Immigration laws are in place to keep people out, not to let them in.

The actual word would change if there were nations, but so long as people value self-determination in government, nations will remain.

:headbang: I just don't understand why people can't LEGALLY immigrate into a country. My family did 2 generations ago to the US, got their green cards, applied for citizenship, they did it the RIGHT way. What I don't understand is why (at least in the US) the illegal immigrants think they are subject to being treated fairly when they are here ILLEGALLY!!!! If someone can explain THAT one to me... i'd much appreciate it. I know, human rights blah blah blah, but i think you should only be treated fairly when you follow the system!

As well, I find it amusing that the true free market capitalist rarely agree with open borders for people.

They're not really free market. They're just posing.

I am, and I agree that borders should be open, because what they call "border control" is nothing more than "national control of the human resource market." I oppose economic authoritarianism for whatever reason.

The sort of tax increases that would be required to go letting everybody in would be crippling. Why should people be obliged to pay for the joys of an immigrant colonisation?

Not necessarily. A large portion of taxes are wasted on useless things, and the rich don't pay nearly as many taxes as they should. And, don't forget that these new immigrants would be paying their share of taxes.

Besides, you forget that a lot of countries don't want any more immigrants in their country on cultural grounds. I certainly wouldn't want the sort damage to our way of life that would come with unrestricted immigration. Why should these places be forced to accept immigration when their population are largely hostile to the idea?

Who says there would be any damage? If anything, it would make the world better. Keeping people apart only leads to hostility.

:headbang: I just don't understand why people can't LEGALLY immigrate into a country. My family did 2 generations ago to the US, got their green cards, applied for citizenship, they did it the RIGHT way. What I don't understand is why (at least in the US) the illegal immigrants think they are subject to being treated fairly when they are here ILLEGALLY!!!! If someone can explain THAT one to me... i'd much appreciate it. I know, human rights blah blah blah, but i think you should only be treated fairly when you follow the system!

You're right. Human rights are precisely the reason we have refugee status applications. Allowing unfettered immigration is a slap in the face to law-abiding applicants who have filed the proper form, paid their dues and moved in lawfully. Amnesties make suckers of ethical migrants.

1) You are blaming the 'poor' quality of life in some nations on the people that happened to be born there.

2) You are taking credit for the 'good' quality of life in your nation, where you happened to be born.

3) Neither scenario is correct. You are no more responsible for the wealth you were born into than others are for the poverty they were born into.

4) You assume that open borders would mean poverty for you and your nation. Why? You are equating freedom of movement with the theft of riches...is your accident of birthplace really your only advantage?

5) Many people move temporarily to find better economic conditions, but few people in this world truly want to forever leave their place of birth. Reasons for leaving are usually negative...violence, poverty, lack of opportunity...but were those factors no longer an issue, (and to be clear, open borders alone are not going to make that true), people will likely choose to remain where they have ties to the land, culture, and people.

1. No, I'm blaming the people in that country.

2. No, I'm taking credit for being a part of a nation. Both of my parents immigrated to the US in the early 70s. I've been behind the Iron Curtain, and been back since.

3. Bingo! So why should the sweat from my brow go to their prosperity?

4. Because that's the TRUTH. Name me a nation with a high standard of living that is not capitalist and democratic. Barring some Emirates (oil economy), there aren't any. Open borders would mean a migration of peoples, just like at the end of WW2. And that would turn into a horde.

5. Are you serious? There are German settlements all across South America, and Polish in the Northern US which are over 100 years old. I can still go into parts of NYC and Bridgeport and not have to speak English. And how about Chinatowns?
b. Even worse! They leave, live in a better area and then go back?? Nothing like a massive welfare system to destroy an economy!

:headbang: I just don't understand why people can't LEGALLY immigrate into a country. My family did 2 generations ago to the US, got their green cards, applied for citizenship, they did it the RIGHT way. What I don't understand is why (at least in the US) the illegal immigrants think they are subject to being treated fairly when they are here ILLEGALLY!!!! If someone can explain THAT one to me... i'd much appreciate it. I know, human rights blah blah blah, but i think you should only be treated fairly when you follow the system!

Whew. I don't think you understand the concept of open borders.

That's exactly what it would be. You seriously think that people wouldn't be fleeing North Korea by the tens of thousands? How about Cuba? Sudan? Zaire?
Why would they flee? Not because of borders, but because of repression and violence. These things are not prevented by borders, so why link them to borders? And again, people generally don't willingly abandon their place of birth forever just because. They do it because of repression, violence, lack of opportunity. Borders make no difference either way.

Right now, life on Earth is good in the 1st world, tolerable in the 2nd, bad in the 3rd and miserable in the 4th (Darfur in Sudan, for example). And do you honestly believe that borders have made it thus? That our borders KEEP us in the '1st' world, and the others in their 'place'?

No, it doesn't. But it doesn't take much to get onto a ship. Heck, some gov'ts might even start CHARTERING ships to get rid of people. Or maybe Greenpeace or other orgs would.

It'd be an world-economic-shattering chaos. Ebb and flow. It couldn't possibly have the long term, devastating effect you are talking about. At some point, high populations will put a strain on available resources, and people will move in order to take advantage of less stressed areas. Supply and demand. You are not going to have the peoples of the earth concentrated in one nation. I think what you truly fear is the possible loss of your advantage of birth. Yes, glaring inequalities in distribution may be corrected, and some standards of living will drop, while others rise. That may mean less than two cars, a 4000square foot house and a lawn the size of a soccer field. Does that necessarily mean that your life will somehow be poorer? You are not the sum of your possessions...you are the sum of your experiences.

Capitalist...hmm...not willingly, no, but I don't see capitalism going away, so I work with it.
But you see borders going away before capitalism does?

If you are not a capitalist, why do you advocate totally free movement of goods between nations?

As well, I find it amusing that the true free market capitalist rarely agree with open borders for people. So I point it out :).

Not these free-market capitalists! (http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml)

I still see no difference between your position and theirs.

In my ideal world, people, ALL people would be actively invovled in the political, economic and social spheres. That doesn't necessarily mean every system will be capitalistic.
I'm sure that if all people were involved the world would be significantly less capitalist than it is. But that's why you call it an ideal world.

Well, you're not even considering increased taxes to compensate. And, look at it this way --- I don't even have a job, so I don't give a shit either way.
those increased taxes would be one of the prices.... so if your family had to pay half of the money that it NOW has to spend for whatever to increased taxes...

so that you had to move because you couldnt afford your current home any more. you couldnt go on vacation, you couldnt by the latest CD etc etc etc. would that be OK to you?

how much are you willing to give up to share with the less fortunate of the world? are you willing to lose your job or to only be able to make a few dollars an hour so that everyone in your family has to work and scramble to keep a roof over your heads? are you willing to have 75 kids in each of your classes so that everyone can get an education?

there would be many prices to pay if we opened our borders. how much are you willing to pay?
How LITTLE are you willing to pay so that others may have the materials necessary for life? Only inequality allows us to have few living in plenty, and many living without. Live simply so that others may simply live...it means prioritizing your life. Do you really need to 'keep up with the Jonses'? No, you WANT to. Does that guarantee quality of life? Would you really choose to hold onto your advantage, granted to you by an accident of birth, just because you don't know the people who are dying of hunger because of the accident of THEIR birth?

Ok, I used nation instead of "country". My bad.
Same idea though...what makes a country? The lines are completely arbitrary. Can you justify where they have been drawn? Do they make sense to you?

Not necessarily. A large portion of taxes are wasted on useless things, and the rich don't pay nearly as many taxes as they should. And, don't forget that these new immigrants would be paying their share of taxes.

It depends on what you mean by useless things. But yes, I do agree that the rich aren't paying nearly enough in tax.

Who says there would be any damage? If anything, it would make the world better. Keeping people apart only leads to hostility.

In my experience it's been the complete opposite. I used to live in a town with a very high middle eastern muslim population. You've got a situation where there are 'no go' areas for white people. When you go into the town, instead of looking like the country's industrial heartland like it used to be, it instead looks like you've just landed in Pakistan. There is much hostility between the two communities, which culminated in a destructive race riot. Now the politicians wonder why the far right British National Party is doing well there.

They're there because nations have the right to provide for the general welfare, which in some cases includes economic controls, which may include regulating labor. They're there because some nations derive their power from citizens, who may elect to uphold their culture and traditions by preventing another nation from washing it off the earth. And so on..
Whose cultural traditions? Everyone's? I don't think so. Borders don't create government, people do. Opening borders doesn't change that...it just changes the makeup of the people.

Seriously. We do we so rabidly defend these imaginary lines? Why do we insist that people remain separated from one another based on arbitrary scribblings on a map? Why are some people, by function of where they happen to be born, able to cross borders with little difficulty, while for others, it is nearly an impossibility? Borders don't really seem to exist for the globetrotting elite of the West, but for the vast majority of the world, these intangible boundaries are as limiting as real walls.

You would think, in this age of global capitalism, where there is a pressing desire for open borders in terms of the production and distribution of goods, that we would also want to fling open the barriers to human movement. Are people really afraid that the world's poor will flock to one 'rich' nation, and drag it down into poverty? Don't your theories of supply and demand apply to human movement too? Wouldn't things at one point even out?

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.

Why not ask South Africa, whose crime rate skyrocketed exponentially since it opened up its borders?

those increased taxes would be one of the prices.... so if your family had to pay half of the money that it NOW has to spend for whatever to increased taxes...

Oh yes, paying 50% of your total income is such a burden...

so that you had to move because you couldnt afford your current home any more. you couldnt go on vacation, you couldnt by the latest CD etc etc etc. would that be OK to you?

1: If you're living in a home that's difficult to pay for, you shouldn't be living there in the first place.

2: A vacation, or Holiday, is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be an ultra-expensive cruise across the Atlantic. I, for one, don't see how people think of such things as a vacation.

3: If you're buying the "latest CD's", you've got more problems than I care to guess.

i'll tell you why borders exist:

There will always be nationalist who think they are better than other nation or think they are stealing their jobs and their land and polluting their blood.


You're right. This IS why borders exist. For purely selfish, and xenophobic reasons. Not for noble ones. If we can at least recognise that, perhaps we can work towards dealing with our prejudice, rather than assigning grand characteristics to an imaginary construct.

In my experience it's been the complete opposite. I used to live in a town with a very high middle eastern muslim population. You've got a situation where there are 'no go' areas for white people. When you go into the town, instead of looking like the country's industrial heartland like it used to be, it instead looks like you've just landed in Pakistan. There is much hostility between the two communities, which culminated in a destructive race riot. Now the politicians wonder why the far right British National Party is doing well there.

Just because it happens in one place doesn't mean it will happen everywhere. And there's probably more to this story than what I'm being told (there usually is).

How LITTLE are you willing to pay so that others may have the materials necessary for life?
Oh, brilliant! You managed to respond to Ashmoria without answering a single one of her questions! :rolleyes:

This varies from nation to nation. Canada favors the rich in its immigration policy, while rich and poor alike can immigrate to America through the same application process. Trade agreements allowing passage and processes for citizenship are two entirely different things. NAFTA doesn't give a Canadian greater priority when moving to the U.S. than a qualified Guatemalan has.
Uh-huh. And ethnicity has nothing to do with it.

The fact is, immigration officers have the power of discretion. If it so happens that there is a lot of anti-latino (we don't care what socio-economic position they hold) sentiment, who is more likely to get in? A middle-class, white Canadian, or a Guatemalan of the same level?

It is NOT an objective process, no matter how we wish it to be.

Same idea though...what makes a country? The lines are completely arbitrary. Can you justify where they have been drawn? Do they make sense to you?

A country is a defined area whose inhabitants are independent from other countries...

Yep. Historically, the winner gets the prize. The world today is 8000 years or so of that being true.

With the exception of post-colonial Africa, yes. That should have been handled much better, given the expericence of post WW1 & splitting up Eastern Europe/Austria-Hungary.

Whose cultural traditions? Everyone's? I don't think so. Borders don't create government, people do. Opening borders doesn't change that...it just changes the makeup of the people.

If I buy 50 acres of land on an Indian reservation of 1000 in the Cherokee Nation, build 800 homes on that land, and move in 2000 white settlers, they will replace all vestiges of local control and end the nation.

If the 23,000,000 arabs living around the state of Israel are allowed free passage into the nation of 6.3 million, already 20% arab, it will cease to exist as the Jewish state it was established as.

These are cultural examples, but self-determination doesn't have to be cultural. Maybe your nation wants to remain secular, rather than a theocracy, or a democratic republic, rather than a dictatorship. I believe they should have tis right, ceterus paribus.

"Borders. What are they good for anyway?"

They offer good books for sale, and their coffee is pretty good too. :D

"Borders. What are they good for anyway?"

They offer good books for sale, and their coffee is pretty good too. :D

Gramps has jokes today! :p

I am mostly secure in knowing (for example) that within the US, it is very, very unlikely that I will be beaten for not growing a beard. I know that as a citizen that my taxes are spent on things for the common good (roads, national defense, school lunches, whatever) for people doing the same.
Opening the borders do not guarantee that a fundamentalist regime will install itself in your nation. And I'm sorry...but do you really think your tax dollars are being that well managed? If so, wouldn't the increase in taxes being paid help?

That's why illegal aliens are a scourge, and why having no borders would be even worse: how would one govern and make people pay their share?
Change the system so that immigration did not exist...just migration, and ensure that taxes are being paid in OTHER ways.

Borders most certainly ensure security: has a militia ever come through and burned your town out like in Darfur? How about starved them like in Somalia? Sent the whole populace into the the fields ala Cambodia?
Do you honestly believe, that were Canada to open its borders, that militias, religious fanatics, and criminals would cut a swath through us? You are ignoring the multitude of historical, social and economic roots that cause such violence. Borders, nations, have little to do with this except for being the stage for which such tragedies are acted out. It is precisely this need to control a population within certain borders that so often ends in tragedy. Creating arbitrary nations that separate ethnicities, families, resources...

Note that anytime something like this happens, it's been LIMIITED to within a country. You are atributing some sort of power to land here. Bad things happen on that land, and good things happen on this land. No. People do the good and bad things, and a nation is really only a construct made up of people who live in a certain area. People in the west are not inherently less violent, less corrupt, less evil than people anywhere else.

Ugh. It wouldn't be anything like that. Once things settle in, it would be like going from state to state, really.

i call for the construction of a wall to keep those iowans out of illinois! it's an invasion and our border security isn't doing its job!

Oh yes, paying 50% of your total income is such a burden...



1: If you're living in a home that's difficult to pay for, you shouldn't be living there in the first place.

2: A vacation, or Holiday, is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be an ultra-expensive cruise across the Atlantic. I, for one, don't see how people think of such things as a vacation.

3: If you're buying the "latest CD's", you've got more problems than I care to guess.
not 50% of your income, 50% of your DISPOSABLE income. go ask your parents if they could make do with half their take home pay.

now i used that 50% as ONE way we might pay for a huge influx from latin america. the burden could be carried in many different ways

all im asking is how much would you be willing to pay?

Sinuhue, I encourage you to take a visit to South Africa, a country with open borders. South Africa is the rape of capital of the world, has the second highest murder rate in the world, over 300,000 robberies annually, is the largest user of mandrax in the world, has a society seven times more violent (per capita) than the U.S., is an international drug-smuggling route comparable to Colombia, etc. etc.

i call for the construction of a wall to keep those iowans out of illinois! it's an invasion and our border security isn't doing its job!

God damn Illinois Nazis...

:p

I agree with every last one of your points, however... I have found it useless to argue with these "people". You can't change the mind of somebody who never had a consience in the first place.
It's not so much a lack of conscience. It's a world view that we don't share. My people have never believed that one could 'own' land. One could live on it, access the resources, give it a name...but not own it. Yes, boundaries exist. Some are natural, like those created by plains, or mountains. Some are spiritual. Some are purely mental. What I think every single one of us on this planet fears is poverty. We believe, in the West, that the only way to prevent poverty, is to keep others out. To keep them from 'taking what is ours'. To keep our advantage. If that means that others must starve, must suffer, we feel it might be a price worth paying. Few people would watch a fellow human being dying in front of them when they knew some small action on their part could save them...but when we keep the 'others' at a distance, we don't HAVE to see that...we don't HAVE to act. We do it with borders. We do it with physical separation from the poverty within our own nations. We do this, because we know we could not stand it, were it to confront us. That's a natural instinct...to protect ourselves. But in this case, I think we are protecting ourselves from our own compassion, because we have been taught that gains must mean losses...and as the 'privileged', it is assumed that it is we that must lose.

How LITTLE are you willing to pay so that others may have the materials necessary for life? Only inequality allows us to have few living in plenty, and many living without. Live simply so that others may simply live...it means prioritizing your life. Do you really need to 'keep up with the Jonses'? No, you WANT to. Does that guarantee quality of life? Would you really choose to hold onto your advantage, granted to you by an accident of birth, just because you don't know the people who are dying of hunger because of the accident of THEIR birth?
that IS the question isnt it

turns out that im not all that willing to pay for strangers around the world but im very willing to pay for people i am related to, know in some way, or share a country with.

not 50% of your income, 50% of your DISPOSABLE income. go ask your parents if they could make do with half their take home pay.

now i used that 50% as ONE way we might pay for a huge influx from latin america. the burden could be carried in many different ways

all im asking is how much would you be willing to pay?

1: I have to ask --- How and why did you come up with such a figure? Formula, please...

2: Exactly. Taxes on religious institutions wouldn't hurt, since they tend to make massive profits.

3: As much as is needed, so long as it's fair (read: the same for everyone).

Why would they flee? Not because of borders, but because of repression and violence. These things are not prevented by borders, so why link them to borders? And again, people generally don't willingly abandon their place of birth forever just because. They do it because of repression, violence, lack of opportunity. Borders make no difference either way.


These things exist BECAUSE people are not all enlightened. Removing borders would just allow for bigger foraging circles.
No, they do so to make a better life in a place that is safer. No borders, no safety. Imagine: you flee a place because the people there want to kill you. You get to somewhere else and... there they are!

Point of fact, without borders, law is unenforceable!

And do you honestly believe that borders have made it thus? That our borders KEEP us in the '1st' world, and the others in their 'place'?


I believe that it made the 1st world possible. You can't have investment without government.

Ebb and flow. It couldn't possibly have the long term, devastating effect you are talking about. At some point, high populations will put a strain on available resources, and people will move in order to take advantage of less stressed areas. Supply and demand. You are not going to have the peoples of the earth concentrated in one nation. I think what you truly fear is the possible loss of your advantage of birth. Yes, glaring inequalities in distribution may be corrected, and some standards of living will drop, while others rise. That may mean less than two cars, a 4000square foot house and a lawn the size of a soccer field. Does that necessarily mean that your life will somehow be poorer? You are not the sum of your possessions...you are the sum of your experiences.

And if a world of no borders came into effect without a single world government and currency, without the whole planet being at about the same income level, there would be no supply. QED.

Agreed. I've experienced 12 nations and four governmental systems. :)

Nope. It's not the advantages of birth. It's seeing the world slide into a bad version of dustbowl Kansas that I fear.

That's odd, I had no idea you were a libertarian capitalist. Your position on opening borders for both goods and people is the same as that of the US Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/).
No doubt we share some similar philosophies...but I would not go as far to label myself anything. I'm too contradictory:).

-snip-

That's what I'm thinking. If people would open their minds to these things, it would be different.

will let me exspand that. i have been dreming of the same thing for years now.in fact it is a motto i live by. i just dont veiw myself as a cedacin of the contry in weich i live but of the world in weich i live.so way not have a one word govrenment one crencey one nation one constition. :)

Besides, you forget that a lot of countries don't want any more immigrants in their country on cultural grounds.
The US, like Canada, are made up of immgrants, and have many different cultures within their borders. As a First Nations person, I can tell you...unrestricted immigration (and in our case, REAL invasion) doesn't necessarily mean cultural extinction. People are people, which means they will stick together with those that share similar culture, language, and desires. Immigration alone will not change that.



I certainly wouldn't want the sort damage to our way of life that would come with unrestricted immigration.
And there is the root of the argument for borders. It isn't necessarily rational, but it is powerful, nonetheless.

It's not so much a lack of conscience. It's a world view that we don't share. My people have never believed that one could 'own' land. One could live on it, access the resources, give it a name...but not own it. Yes, boundaries exist. Some are natural, like those created by plains, or mountains. Some are spiritual. Some are purely mental. What I think every single one of us on this planet fears is poverty. We believe, in the West, that the only way to prevent poverty, is to keep others out. To keep them from 'taking what is ours'. To keep our advantage. If that means that others must starve, must suffer, we feel it might be a price worth paying. Few people would watch a fellow human being dying in front of them when they knew some small action on their part could save them...but when we keep the 'others' at a distance, we don't HAVE to see that...we don't HAVE to act. We do it with borders. We do it with physical separation from the poverty within our own nations. We do this, because we know we could not stand it, were it to confront us. That's a natural instinct...to protect ourselves. But in this case, I think we are protecting ourselves from our own compassion, because we have been taught that gains must mean losses...and as the 'privileged', it is assumed that it is we that must lose.

You can poison the well by ascribing bigotted motives to anyone advocating state sovereignty, but you're only giving away biases of your own.

Mexicans can move to America and become citizens and own land while I cannot, under NAFTA, move to Mexico and become a citizen, vote, or own land there. Is this called racist, bigotted or elitist, the rich oppressing the poor? No. This was an arrangement by two sovereign governments, and I am bound to respect it, not forge documents or evade the rules. It seems to me like you're assuming borders are always a matter of keeping wealth to oneself, when this is not always, or even usually the case.

The actual word would change if there were nations, but so long as people value self-determination in government, nations will remain.
I agree. But borders and nations can be fluid.

Change the system so that immigration did not exist...just migration, and ensure that taxes are being paid in OTHER ways.

hell, it would only require the most basic sort of changes anyway. again looking at the example of moving from state to state in the usa, it's not exactly hard for them to get new arrivals across any of the various borders to pay taxes in the new jurisdiction. it's no problem at all for things like sales taxes, and income taxes pose exactly the same amount of logistic problems as they do in general - most of which could be solved by changing them to be handled entirely by the business paying the wages rather than the individuals receiving them.

Opening the borders do not guarantee that a fundamentalist regime will install itself in your nation. And I'm sorry...but do you really think your tax dollars are being that well managed? If so, wouldn't the increase in taxes being paid help?

Better than they used to be. When we had OPEN STATE welfare, people would collect welfare from multiple states! Now that the system has been nationalized in infrastructure, that doesn't happen (or at least, as much).

What increase? A migrant from Darfur comes and does what? Wash dishes? I think he's taking more from the system than giving... at least in the near term. And the system CANNOT handle tens of thousands to millinos coming at once!

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]Change the system so that immigration did not exist...just migration, and ensure that taxes are being paid in OTHER ways.

How?? Peopel cheat on taxes in their OWN nations. How are you going to track people without borders? There aren't any passports, nor any nationalities. Worse, there are no services, since there is no currency, since no one can agree on what to use. :(

Do you honestly believe, that were Canada to open its borders, that militias, religious fanatics, and criminals would cut a swath through us? You are ignoring the multitude of historical, social and economic roots that cause such violence. Borders, nations, have little to do with this except for being the stage for which such tragedies are acted out. It is precisely this need to control a population within certain borders that so often ends in tragedy. Creating arbitrary nations that separate ethnicities, families, resources...

Yep. Look at South Africa.

I'm looking at the multitude of historical, social, and economic roots of barbarity. Rome couldn't preserve her borders, and was ransacked. Ditto France on many occasions, just about everyone vs. the Vikings, Russia by the Mongols/Napoleon... Consider even the Americas! There were no borders, and the whites annihilated the Native Americans/Indians.

ANY time in human history when there has been a massive mobile population, war and depravity follow. QED.

You are atributing some sort of power to land here. Bad things happen on that land, and good things happen on this land. No. People do the good and bad things, and a nation is really only a construct made up of people who live in a certain area. People in the west are not inherently less violent, less corrupt, less evil than people anywhere else.

I'm attributing power to government, and government cannot exist without definition, which requires borders.

True! But they ACT less violent, corrupt and evil due to THE LAW.
And you can't have law without enforcement. And enforcement requires government, which requires boundries. How would you feel if you were suddenly arrested for not wearing a burka by the Taleban? :rolleyes:

hell, it would only require the most basic sort of changes anyway. again looking at the example of moving from state to state in the usa, it's not exactly hard for them to get new arrivals across any of the various borders to pay taxes in the new jurisdiction. it's no problem at all for things like sales taxes, and income taxes pose exactly the same amount of logistic problems as they do in general - most of which could be solved by changing them to be handled entirely by the business paying the wages rather than the individuals receiving them.

Exactly, which is why I said it would be like going state-to-state, rather than country-to-country.

It would make things much better in the long run.

1. No, I'm blaming the people in that country. Still proves my point. Those people did not create the nation, the economic or social situation that they live in. Nor did you. Which means you can neither assign blame, or take credit the living standard you have found yourself endowed with.

2. No, I'm taking credit for being a part of a nation. Both of my parents immigrated to the US in the early 70s. I've been behind the Iron Curtain, and been back since.
And had your parents been forced to remain in their own nation, would you be taking credit or blame for that one too?

3. Bingo! So why should the sweat from my brow go to their prosperity?
Ahhh...it should only be a one way street then? The 'sweat from their brows' is exactly what put your nation in the position it now enjoys. That sweat means you get your goods at a cheaper price than people in the countries that PRODUCE those goods pay. That sweat ensures that resources are being extracted at the lowest possible price for your benefit. But because of your separation from these people, you can easily forget these facts.

4. Because that's the TRUTH. Name me a nation with a high standard of living that is not capitalist and democratic. Barring some Emirates (oil economy), there aren't any. Open borders would mean a migration of peoples, just like at the end of WW2. And that would turn into a horde. And you are forgetting all the nations that are capitalistic AND democratic that are also poor and rife with violence. And would you seriously say that the post WWII immigration was a bad thing? My grandmother would argue, since that's when she first arrived here.

5. Are you serious? There are German settlements all across South America, and Polish in the Northern US which are over 100 years old. I can still go into parts of NYC and Bridgeport and not have to speak English. And how about Chinatowns? Again, why did the original settlers leave in the first place? Social, economic, or political reasons. And they stay, because their children now call your nation home.

b. Even worse! They leave, live in a better area and then go back?? Nothing like a massive welfare system to destroy an economy!You assume that governments would be run in the same manner they are now. With open borders, that would not be possible. You believe that they will come, contribute nothing, and take everything, then leave again. We are not talking about a free-for-all-grab-as-much-as-you-can-and-leave. People working, living, studying, participating in your nation enrich it.

1: I have to ask --- How and why did you come up with such a figure? Formula, please...

2: Exactly. Taxes on religious institutions wouldn't hurt, since they tend to make massive profits.

3: As much as is needed, so long as it's fair (read: the same for everyone).
where do you think i got it? i made i up. geez you think there are good statistics for what would happen if we opened our borders but didnt want to cut social services?

your tag says you live in houston. so you know that legal and illegal immigration from mexico has an impact on the infrastructure of texas. schools, hospitals housing. it has an impact on wages eh?

i live in new mexico, the wages here for manual labor.. construction, landscaping etc.. SUCK because they are undercut by illegal immigrants who will work for less per hour "tax free".

thats a very important consideration in open borders. when you have millions of extra workers looking for jobs, locals arent going to get hired (even if its only on a "there are so many fewer locals than immigrant" basis) the price of labor is going to go down. where are they going to live? where are their kids gong to go to school? who is going to pay for their medical bills? all of that has to be paid for and its not going to be the new immigrants who have just walked to texas in search of a better life. if they had money they would have stayed where they were.

if you are a criminal in .... honduras... why not come to america where crime pays so much better? if you are in the US and cant get a job because there are too many new comers, wont you turn to crime to feed your children if necessary? if you can bring a suitcase full of cocaine with you on your open trip across the border, would you really turn down a chance to have enough money to get a start here?

sure in 100 years it will all even out. the world would reach some kind of equilibrium where the vast majority of everyone has a little bit and a few have lots. it would no longer be on a country by country basis but would be spread across the globe more evenly.

in the mean time it has to be paid for. how much are you willing to give up? you are really willing to live like a peasant in guatemala as long as youre in the same boat as everyone else?

oops i seem to have gone on a rant

[/rant]

But you see borders going away before capitalism does?

If you are not a capitalist, why do you advocate totally free movement of goods between nations?Because I can play the devils advocate for capitalism...if it gets me open borders.


Not these free-market capitalists! (http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml)

I still see no difference between your position and theirs.[/QUOTE] I suppose I shouldn't say TRUE free market capitalists...but rather those who are...when it suits them.


I'm sure that if all people were involved the world would be significantly less capitalist than it is. But that's why you call it an ideal world.Yes. This is my hope...and dream...and talking about it doesn't mean I expect it to actually happen. We're discussing an idea, not a revolution in the making:).


I'm only as capitalistic as my belief in human rights and the environment let me. Which is to say, it changes from day to day.

Because various groups of people (societies) have different standards/laws/protocols, borders are needed to differentiate where the rule sets change. If a country decides to eliminate its borders, does it then take on the responsibilities of governing the rest of the world (and impose its standards)? Does it also gain the right to tax the rest of the world to do so? If all borders are eliminated, who will decide which rule set applies to the entire world?

It is naive (way beyond idealistic) to think of a world without borders as long as there are differences between people (and there always will be).

Seriously. We do we so rabidly defend these imaginary lines? Why do we insist that people remain separated from one another based on arbitrary scribblings on a map? Why are some people, by function of where they happen to be born, able to cross borders with little difficulty, while for others, it is nearly an impossibility? Borders don't really seem to exist for the globetrotting elite of the West, but for the vast majority of the world, these intangible boundaries are as limiting as real walls.

You would think, in this age of global capitalism, where there is a pressing desire for open borders in terms of the production and distribution of goods, that we would also want to fling open the barriers to human movement. Are people really afraid that the world's poor will flock to one 'rich' nation, and drag it down into poverty? Don't your theories of supply and demand apply to human movement too? Wouldn't things at one point even out?

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.

that'd be fine with, given that my country is one so many people wish to come to, so long as they are willing to:

a)Apply for citizenship (whatever the process entails); if you want to be here, you can be a citizen. If not, get a green card, stay for a few months, then leave.

b)Work. I'm sure I'm not alone in being pissed off that illegal aliens are able to receive free health care and free food/welfare in some places in this country. If you're going to be an American, you need to learn that one thing that makes this country great is the work ethic of its people. Part of being an American is the willingness to pull your own weight, to contribute, to not be dead weight and a strain on the economy. So, lace up those work boots and get a job.

c)Learn the lingua franca of the United States, which is English. I don't give a crap what you speak in your home or your business (if you own one) or your car (etc.), but the fact that we have to have signs in both English and Spanish is absurd imo. English is America's language. Immigrants before you had to learn English to survive here (government didn't print signs German, Italian, etc., for their comfort), and so should you. Besides, given that Americans speak English, the fact that you learn English is practical in that it will help you greatly to be able to communicate with Average Joe.

d)Do not become a felon. It might be tough to make contacts/find a solid job when you first arrive, but do not think that we'll stand for you robbing people. Poverty is no excuse for crime.

Sinuhue, I encourage you to take a visit to South Africa, a country with open borders. South Africa is the rape of capital of the world, has the second highest murder rate in the world, over 300,000 robberies annually, is the largest user of mandrax in the world, has a society seven times more violent (per capita) than the U.S., is an international drug-smuggling route comparable to Colombia, etc. etc.

I didn't notice anyone responding, so sorry if I repeat anything.

RB, you need to do more than just correlate open boarders with rising crime. Where is the cause and effect? How did open boarders lead to more crime? Are there other factors, socio-economic, political, cultural, etc, that could have contributed to the rise in crime? You haven't covered that.

All have you managed to say is that, at around the time of opening boards, S. Africa had higher levels of crime. That's meaningless without a more significant connection between these two occurances.

those increased taxes would be one of the prices.... so if your family had to pay half of the money that it NOW has to spend for whatever to increased taxes...

so that you had to move because you couldnt afford your current home any more. you couldnt go on vacation, you couldnt by the latest CD etc etc etc. would that be OK to you?
What are we talking about here? The semi-socialist economic policies we currently have? Because that wouldn't make sense in a borderless world. Not when populations were so in flux. The degree of taxes would have to be decided by people living in a certain area, and they would have to determine how best to use those tax dollars.

Then again, this isn't saying some socialist policies wouldn't be viable...just not universal, nor governed on a federal level...what would the point be in a nation with no borders?

You can't think about this in the same way you think about national governance. Open borders would radically change the meaning of 'nation'.

where do you think i got it? i made i up. geez you think there are good statistics for what would happen if we opened our borders but didnt want to cut social services?

your tag says you live in houston. so you know that legal and illegal immigration from mexico has an impact on the infrastructure of texas. schools, hospitals housing. it has an impact on wages eh?

i live in new mexico, the wages here for manual labor.. construction, landscaping etc.. SUCK because they are undercut by illegal immigrants who will work for less per hour "tax free".

thats a very important consideration in open borders. when you have millions of extra workers looking for jobs, locals arent going to get hired (even if its only on a "there are so many fewer locals than immigrant" basis) the price of labor is going to go down. where are they going to live? where are their kids gong to go to school? who is going to pay for their medical bills? all of that has to be paid for and its not going to be the new immigrants who have just walked to texas in search of a better life. if they had money they would have stayed where they were.

if you are a criminal in .... honduras... why not come to america where crime pays so much better? if you are in the US and cant get a job because there are too many new comers, wont you turn to crime to feed your children if necessary? if you can bring a suitcase full of cocaine with you on your open trip across the border, would you really turn down a chance to have enough money to get a start here?

sure in 100 years it will all even out. the world would reach some kind of equilibrium where the vast majority of everyone has a little bit and a few have lots. it would no longer be on a country by country basis but would be spread across the globe more evenly.

in the mean time it has to be paid for. how much are you willing to give up? you are really willing to live like a peasant in guatemala as long as youre in the same boat as everyone else?

oops i seem to have gone on a rant

[/rant]

1: You could at least attempt to make a formula based on a reasonable estimate.

2: What? It hasn't done anything to "impact" the economy. If anything, it's gotten better. A friend of mine (well, my only friend, really) gets really good wages for doing various jobs. Usually at least $10 per hour.

3: That's not the fault of the immigrants. That's corruption on the part of employers, with the government doing nothing about it.

4: Just like with Houston, the situation will get just a bit worse for a while (the effect was negligible), but it will steadily get better and better. Thanks to all the Mexican immigrants in Houston, there are *lots* of jobs you can get in this area.

5: Seems to me that if they're criminals, they'd be doing this already. They're criminals.

6: Vast majority of everyone has "a little bit" and few have "lots"? What the hell... Where you people get these ideas, I will never know.

7: Again --- Where are you getting this "living like a Peasant in Guatemala" from? You make it as if *EVERYONE* will be moving to America...

Why not ask South Africa, whose crime rate skyrocketed exponentially since it opened up its borders?
You show me the direct causal link between open borders and crime in South Africa. Then you prove to me that this is what will happen in every case.

No doubt we share some similar philosophies...but I would not go as far to label myself anything. I'm too contradictory:).
So you are actually in favour of eliminating tariffs, thus allowing big business to lay off all its workers in the west in order to open sweatshops elsewhere?

2: Exactly. Taxes on religious institutions wouldn't hurt, since they tend to make massive profits.

Your opinion of this subject is likely misinformed and influenced by the incredibly corrupt nature of American Southern Christianity. Most churches don't pull in profits. Their money is spent on charity and self-maintenance (the classic fixing the church roof!).

The US, like Canada, are made up of immgrants, and have many different cultures within their borders. As a First Nations person, I can tell you...unrestricted immigration (and in our case, REAL invasion) doesn't necessarily mean cultural extinction. People are people, which means they will stick together with those that share similar culture, language, and desires. Immigration alone will not change that.
Hundreds of Native American tribes have died out. I shouldn't have to tell you that.

You show me the direct causal link between open borders and crime in South Africa. Then you prove to me that this is what will happen in every case.
It's pretty rich for you to demand proof for assertions. You have not proven any of yours.

You show me the direct causal link between open borders and crime in South Africa. Then you prove to me that this is what will happen in every case.

Ha! Beat you to it! :p

Because various groups of people (societies) have different standards/laws/protocols, borders are needed to differentiate where the rule sets change. If a country decides to eliminate its borders, does it then take on the responsibilities of governing the rest of the world (and impose its standards)? Does it also gain the right to tax the rest of the world to do so? If all borders are eliminated, who will decide which rule set applies to the entire world?

It is naive (way beyond idealistic) to think of a world without borders as long as there are differences between people (and there always will be).

Well said. These are the only issues that should matter in deciding whether borders qua borders are valuable or desirable.

/time for sleep

Your opinion of this subject is likely misinformed and influenced by the incredibly corrupt nature of American Southern Christianity. Most churches don't pull in profits. Their money is spent on charity and self-maintenance (the classic fixing the church roof!).

Haha, yeah, I should've put an asterisk in (I was going to).

You should see the mega-churches in the Houston area. They're like stadiums... They're massive! That said, anything that turns a profit should be subject to taxation.

I know that most churches don't make such profits, but the ones in the Southern states would bring in a lot of tax money, especially Lakewood Church in Houston (they actually ARE in an arena).

Oh, brilliant! You managed to respond to Ashmoria without answering a single one of her questions! :rolleyes:
Let me answer with a roll of my eyes :rolleyes: Frankly, I didn't find the questions valid. They are based not on fact, not on guarantees, but on guesses and fears. But here:


how much are you willing to give up to share with the less fortunate of the world? As much as need be. My life is not centered around material things. My happiness is not dependent on my income.



are you willing to lose your job or to only be able to make a few dollars an hour so that everyone in your family has to work and scramble to keep a roof over your heads?Explain to me why open borders guarantees this scenario.



are you willing to have 75 kids in each of your classes so that everyone can get an education?
You seem to be ignoring supply and demand. When there are more students, there are more teachers. When more people living in an area pay property taxes, more schools are built. So how are open borders going to create this crisis?


there would be many prices to pay if we opened our borders. how much are you willing to pay?
There would be prices to pay, and benefits to be had. You don't know that one would outweigh the other, but you hold onto a system because the alternative is nebulous. Fear is not the best reason to keep things the way they are.

Still proves my point. Those people did not create the nation, the economic or social situation that they live in. Nor did you. Which means you can neither assign blame, or take credit the living standard you have found yourself endowed with.

People ARE the nation. The reason why Canada or the US is what it is... is directly due to the governments (people) and labors by the people.

The country of Sudan (as an example) didn't do so well. I ascribe the credit where it is due: to the people of the country. We live here, they live there. People ANYWHERE are in their situation due to themselves.


And had your parents been forced to remain in their own nation, would you be taking credit or blame for that one too?

You're the one saying that I am. My folks came here LEGALLY. They applied and were accepted. But do you think the US could handle millions fleeing Eastern Europe? :rolleyes:
I've never said we need CLOSED borders. I'm saying that no borders is a bad idea. BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Ahhh...it should only be a one way street then? The 'sweat from their brows' is exactly what put your nation in the position it now enjoys. That sweat means you get your goods at a cheaper price than people in the countries that PRODUCE those goods pay. That sweat ensures that resources are being extracted at the lowest possible price for your benefit. But because of your separation from these people, you can easily forget these facts.

Um, no. I get a t-shirt for $10-20. It cost $0.10 to make in China. :p
Forget? You seem to think I'm rich or something. Double :p.

And you are forgetting all the nations that are capitalistic AND democratic that are also poor and rife with violence. And would you seriously say that the post WWII immigration was a bad thing? My grandmother would argue, since that's when she first arrived here.

Where? Name me ONE capitalist, democratic country that is poor and rife with violence. Just one.

I'm talking about the massive migration of people at the end of WW2 (not out of Europe, but WITHIN Europe), as people went home.

Again, why did the original settlers leave in the first place? Social, economic, or political reasons. And they stay, because their children now call your nation home.

Right. And they came, built it up, and work within the law.
Now you're proposing that we eliminate borders and let everybody in. Wages will plummet. Food and goods will become scarce, and crime will skyrocket. No thanks.

You assume that governments would be run in the same manner they are now. With open borders, that would not be possible. You believe that they will come, contribute nothing, and take everything, then leave again. We are not talking about a free-for-all-grab-as-much-as-you-can-and-leave. People working, living, studying, participating in your nation enrich it.

That's EXACTLY what would happen. Why should it be different? If I'm a poor migrant from Guatemala, why should I come to America to work when I can just form a gang with other Guatemalans (you can't stop us from coming in) and become bandits?

It's pretty rich for you to demand proof for assertions. You have not proven any of yours.

Why don't we avoid personal attacks and weigh arguements on their merits.

If I buy 50 acres of land on an Indian reservation of 1000 in the Cherokee Nation, build 800 homes on that land, and move in 2000 white settlers, they will replace all vestiges of local control and end the nation. No. You would have to destroy the vessels of culture...the people themselves in order to do that. We were moved once, and survived. Like all people, we take our culture with us.

If the 23,000,000 arabs living around the state of Israel are allowed free passage into the nation of 6.3 million, already 20% arab, it will cease to exist as the Jewish state it was established as. So? Will that somehow extinguish the Jewish culture? Cultures are in constant flux. No doubt there will be cultural bleed...but that doesn't mean extinction.

These are cultural examples, but self-determination doesn't have to be cultural. Maybe your nation wants to remain secular, rather than a theocracy, or a democratic republic, rather than a dictatorship. I believe they should have tis right, ceterus paribus.You assume that everyone in a nation agrees. This is an impossibility. It would make more sense for REGIONS of people to be theocratic, or whatever...than to impose such a system from above on a population that may only HALF agree with it.

"Borders. What are they good for anyway?"

They offer good books for sale, and their coffee is pretty good too. :D
I wanted to say, "Borders...what have they done for you lately...oooh oooohyeah..." :p

When there are more students, there are more teachers.
-----

Sinuhue

Supply and demand might dictate business practices (to an extent), but I'm not sure they necessarily apply to the work force.

Quantity of teachers will only increase in proportion to quantity of students if an increased number of people are willing to become teachers and if school districts are willing to hire (and pay...) more teachers. You'd probably hear a lot of "We can make do with the teachers we have..." at school board meetings.

As much as need be. My life is not centered around material things. My happiness is not dependent on my income.
I can't pretend to know your circumstances, but everyone I have ever heard saying this is rich. People who say they don't need possessions generally have never had to do without them.

Explain to me why open borders guarantees this scenario.

Because immigrants are willing to work for far less money than natives. Thus they drive down the average wages. Let me guess, you live in a place which doesn't have a lot of immigration right now?

Sinuhue - It's a nice idea, but it's not going to work. As you can probably see from this whole thread, the vast majority of people cannot comprehend what a world without borders would be like. That's not a jab at anyone - it's true. It's a concept so outside your daily perspective that you can't get your mind around. Even I can only get in a nibble at the edges. So, while it would be good for the world in the long run - and would certainly reduce the scale of wars, because it would be groups of people fighting, not entire nations - it's just not going to work in the world as we have to deal with it. It's a pity, though.

You know, I was just thinking...all things being equal...who would WANT to live in the (mostly) Northern nations? If our economic situations were the same...there'd be a mad dash to the equator. Is wealth the only thing making our cold countries desireable? :D

So? Will that somehow extinguish the Jewish culture? Cultures are in constant flux. No doubt there will be cultural bleed...but that doesn't mean extinction.
Actually, it will. Most of the Arab governments would not give Jews the same rights as everyone else, and we would be back to the same problem we had before Israel was created.

The Jews would be forced to go elsewhere.

I can't pretend to know your circumstances, but everyone I have ever heard saying this is rich. People who say they don't need possessions generally have never had to do without them.

The people you know must be pretty pretentious, then.

Because immigrants are willing to work for far less money than natives. Thus they drive down the average wages. Let me guess, you live in a place which doesn't have a lot of immigration right now?

Hey, I live in Houston with hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, and wages have gone up, if anything. And, you can find a job virtually anywhere, which is good.

Borders is only good for books, DVDs, CDs, and coffee.

You can poison the well by ascribing bigotted motives to anyone advocating state sovereignty, but you're only giving away biases of your own.
Don't make assumptions. I was making a general statement about human nature...not ascribing one group with these qualities.

The country of Sudan (as an example) didn't do so well. I ascribe the credit where it is due: to the people of the country. We live here, they live there. People ANYWHERE are in their situation due to themselves.

Do people determine the level of capital development at any one moment in time? How about the fertility of their farm land? The natural resources at their disposal? Or even the structure of their government?

Where? Name me ONE capitalist, democratic country that is poor and rife with violence. Just one.

Brazil.

There were no borders, and the whites annihilated the Native Americans/Indians.
That was not caused by a lack of borders, but rather by the intent to invade and dominate. And *yoohoo*...we're still here!

It is naive (way beyond idealistic) to think of a world without borders as long as there are differences between people (and there always will be).
Getting rid of borders would not eliminate differences between people. It would allow for their mobility.

You show me the direct causal link between open borders and crime in South Africa. Then you prove to me that this is what will happen in every case.

If borders are open, anyone can come into the country. Anyone. And no one can stop them. Completely opening borders or abolishing them would be nothing short of moronic.

1: You could at least attempt to make a formula based on a reasonable estimate.

2: What? It hasn't done anything to "impact" the economy. If anything, it's gotten better. A friend of mine (well, my only friend, really) gets really good wages for doing various jobs. Usually at least $10 per hour.

3: That's not the fault of the immigrants. That's corruption on the part of employers, with the government doing nothing about it.

4: Just like with Houston, the situation will get just a bit worse for a while (the effect was negligible), but it will steadily get better and better. Thanks to all the Mexican immigrants in Houston, there are *lots* of jobs you can get in this area.

5: Seems to me that if they're criminals, they'd be doing this already. They're criminals.

6: Vast majority of everyone has "a little bit" and few have "lots"? What the hell... Where you people get these ideas, I will never know.

7: Again --- Where are you getting this "living like a Peasant in Guatemala" from? You make it as if *EVERYONE* will be moving to America...

open borders means criminals arent kept out. we wouldnt be LOOKING eh? we wouldnt be saying who can and cant come in, they would just come. and yes they do already do this. it would only get worse if you cant keep out "undesireable"

in the world today most people have very little. look at africa, indian, china, latin america, indonesia. no need to go nation by nation but its a real quick add up to 3billion+ people living on less than they should. (you can try to argue with me about china but dont bother)

then you look at the US, canada, japan and western europe. we do pretty well. WE are rich, THEY are poor. wealth is unequally spread across the globe. we have more than "our fair share" they have less than theirs.

if we opened our borders, the poor from latin america would come here in much greater numbers than they do now. it changes the balance of wealth.

evening it out woudlnt mean that the poor people start driving mercedes, it would mean that we (the average american) would live like the average person on earth does today.... hence the guatemalan peasant reference

If borders are open, anyone can come into the country. Anyone. And no one can stop them. Completely opening borders or abolishing them would be nothing short of moronic.

i know! they even let people from alabama move to idaho! the horror!

So you are actually in favour of eliminating tariffs, thus allowing big business to lay off all its workers in the west in order to open sweatshops elsewhere? Hmmmm...I think this belongs in the "twist my words to suit you" thread....

I am not going to lay out a complete political and economic policy for you here. I'm not going to say, "This is how it would work, and this is what the results would be". I'm challenging the idea of borders, but I do not need to challenge an idea only if I provide a complete alternative. Such things are for political philosophers. This is an idea that others share, that others oppose, that we can beat up on, improve, discard, change, renew...but don't extrapolate my position on this to other positions. It won't help you to figure out where I stand on life, the universe, and everything. Which is why I said up front...I can be contradictory...just like everyone else.


Hundreds of Native American tribes have died out. I shouldn't have to tell you that.And so have many other ethnicities and cultures around the world. Are you saying borders will stop that? Or that lack of borders caused it?

It's pretty rich for you to demand proof for assertions. You have not proven any of yours.
I'm not making any hardcore assertions. I've not said, "Open borders will do this..."
I'm questioning the need for them. Period.

If borders are open, anyone can come into the country. Anyone. And no one can stop them. Completely opening borders or abolishing them would be nothing short of moronic.

Are all the new crimes committed by immigrants? Did immigrants change the economic situation of the whole nation? Was there a steady rise in crime before? If there was, what caused it and have those same factors been increasing lately?

Better, but still not satisfactory. It really is hard to prove anything though, that's why we don't know all that much.

I'm not making any hardcore assertions. I've not said, "Open borders will do this..."
I'm questioning the need for them. Period.
I need Borders. I don't want to buy my books online. I need coffee when I buy books...

i know! they even let people from alabama move to idaho! the horror!

That'd still be stupid to abolish those borders, too. Only a moron would favor the abolition of all borders.

What are we talking about here? The semi-socialist economic policies we currently have? Because that wouldn't make sense in a borderless world. Not when populations were so in flux. The degree of taxes would have to be decided by people living in a certain area, and they would have to determine how best to use those tax dollars.

Then again, this isn't saying some socialist policies wouldn't be viable...just not universal, nor governed on a federal level...what would the point be in a nation with no borders?

You can't think about this in the same way you think about national governance. Open borders would radically change the meaning of 'nation'.
no i wasnt putting it out there seriously. i was just trying to put it in terms i thought would be relevant to potaira (i failed) not trying to say it would have to be run in any particular way

if i had been going to suggest to YOU something that i would think you would have to be OK with if you really wanted open border i would have brought up the idea of 25-50 million chinese people moving to canada.

Where? Name me ONE capitalist, democratic country that is poor and rife with violence. Just one.

Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, etc.etc.etc. Poor by our standads. Rife with violence by our standards.

Are all the new crimes committed by immigrants? Did immigrants change the economic situation of the whole nation? Was there a steady rise in crime before? If there was, what caused it and have those same factors been increasing lately?

Better, but still not satisfactory. It really is hard to prove anything though, that's why we don't know all that much.

No, immigrants do not cause all new crimes. But borders are needed to ensure that criminals do not get in.

When there are more students, there are more teachers.
-----

Sinuhue

Supply and demand might dictate business practices (to an extent), but I'm not sure they necessarily apply to the work force.

Quantity of teachers will only increase in proportion to quantity of students if an increased number of people are willing to become teachers and if school districts are willing to hire (and pay...) more teachers. You'd probably hear a lot of "We can make do with the teachers we have..." at school board meetings. Of course you will...but remember...school boards are elected, and choosen from the public. That kind of shit only goes so far:).

*grumbles about school boards*...

Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, etc.etc.etc. Poor by our standads. Rife with violence by our standards.

Then again, they're also rampantly corrupt, like 99% of Third World countries are. It doesn't matter if they're capitalist or socialist, because most of the money winds up in the government's coffers.

open borders means criminals arent kept out. we wouldnt be LOOKING eh? we wouldnt be saying who can and cant come in, they would just come. and yes they do already do this. it would only get worse if you cant keep out "undesireable"

in the world today most people have very little. look at africa, indian, china, latin america, indonesia. no need to go nation by nation but its a real quick add up to 3billion+ people living on less than they should. (you can try to argue with me about china but dont bother)

then you look at the US, canada, japan and western europe. we do pretty well. WE are rich, THEY are poor. wealth is unequally spread across the globe. we have more than "our fair share" they have less than theirs.

if we opened our borders, the poor from latin america would come here in much greater numbers than they do now. it changes the balance of wealth.

evening it out woudlnt mean that the poor people start driving mercedes, it would mean that we (the average american) would live like the average person on earth does today.... hence the guatemalan peasant reference

1: I say --- Good. People shouldn't have to lead shitty lives just because they were born in an unfortunate place.

2: True. Opening borders would improve the situation.

3: Which is why opening borders would help this problem. More people would be on equal terms this way.

4: For a short amount of time. Then, it makes it better, because there are more people. The more people there are, the more job opportunities you'll have. Do you see where I'm going with this?

5: For a short amount of time, yes, we would be less wealthy. But, at the same level of a Guatemalan peasant? Pfff.... Please.

I can't pretend to know your circumstances, but everyone I have ever heard saying this is rich. People who say they don't need possessions generally have never had to do without them.
Well, that's the people you know. And you're right, you don't know my circumstances.

Am I middle class? Now? Yes. Would I be unable to survive if I didn't have a tv, a van, my job?

No. Are these things truly important to me?

No. My children and my husband and my family are...and these are not things dictated by possessions.


Because immigrants are willing to work for far less money than natives. Thus they drive down the average wages. Let me guess, you live in a place which doesn't have a lot of immigration right now? Even if you eliminated minimum wage laws (which I would never support), you would likely have competition at its highest for the minimum wage jobs. Skilled labour would still require skill.

...immigrants do not cause all new crimes. But borders are needed to ensure that criminals do not get in.

I wasn't clear with the my language. All incomming criminals would be immigrants, but not all immigrants criminals. So, are all the new crimes caused by the new criminals?

Then again, they're also rampantly corrupt, like 99% of Third World countries are. It doesn't matter if they're capitalist or socialist, because most of the money winds up in the government's coffers.

Violence and corruption go hand in hand because they are both the result of the loss of the rule of law. I'm not sure how corruption excuses/changes the point being made.

Sinuhue - It's a nice idea, but it's not going to work. As you can probably see from this whole thread, the vast majority of people cannot comprehend what a world without borders would be like. That's not a jab at anyone - it's true. It's a concept so outside your daily perspective that you can't get your mind around. Even I can only get in a nibble at the edges. So, while it would be good for the world in the long run - and would certainly reduce the scale of wars, because it would be groups of people fighting, not entire nations - it's just not going to work in the world as we have to deal with it. It's a pity, though.
Oh don't worry...despite what people seem to think, I don't think that my talking about the issue makes it real:). It's an idea, a concept...but apparently it really pisses people off...

Borders around a country actually serve several purposes.

Politically they define the space where the influence of the particular government of that land can enforce its rule; policy, taxes, law, etc. Outside of that border the lands are governed by other governments with their own powers. Governments are always looking to expand these borders, so they shall always be protected.

Socially they are there to creat deffinition for peoples. This happens not only on a global scale, but also on a local scale. People in San Jose (Where I am from) are fairly different than people from Saratoga (A city neighboring San Jose). These social borders help create the identity for a culture, since a lot of culture is based on geography.

Metaphysically... well, I'm not going to go too spiritual on you, but metaphysically borders help to keep energies and spirits in and out of an area. For example, the edge of a graveyard is well marked to seperate it from the community, this is to keep spirits within the confines of that area. As such with the larger borders of countries, to keep their own spiritual realm their own.

Borders is only good for books, DVDs, CDs, and coffee.
Eut beat you to it! :p

If borders are open, anyone can come into the country. Anyone. And no one can stop them.
Yes.
Completely opening borders or abolishing them would be nothing short of moronic.Hmmm...I'm not seeing the link between open borders and being moronic....

I think you missed some steps inbetween there :D

That'd still be stupid to abolish those borders, too. Only a moron would favor the abolition of all borders.
Hmmmm...ad hominem gets you no love...and is a little unlike you RB???

So, are all the new crimes caused by the new criminals?

No.

no i wasnt putting it out there seriously. i was just trying to put it in terms i thought would be relevant to potaira (i failed) not trying to say it would have to be run in any particular way

if i had been going to suggest to YOU something that i would think you would have to be OK with if you really wanted open border i would have brought up the idea of 25-50 million chinese people moving to canada.
Quite honestly, if they were willing to move to our vast rural areas and farm, I would welcome them with open arms. Not wanting to live in spraling urban areas...I'd probably been unaffected if they went there:).

Hmmmm...ad hominem gets you no love...and is a little unlike you RB???

It's true, though. Abolishing them would be moronic. Have fun when hordes of rapists, killers, and thugs invade your country.

No, immigrants do not cause all new crimes. But borders are needed to ensure that criminals do not get in.
How about we make borders porous...so criminals can't get in, and criminals ALREADY in find themselves moved out by osmosis :D

Oh wait...that would only work if ONE nation's borders were porous:).

You are assuming that the concept of 'owning land' is right. Or truly possible. You may have the title to a scrap of land...but it is only your philosophy, your BELIEF that this title really means anything that gives it value. Saying, "This is my land" truly means nothing. You can't take it with you when you die. That land is no more yours that it is the tree's the river's, the sky's.

The nation state is a human construct, and so are borders. Which means, humans can deconstruct them.

I'll remember that if I'm ever in your neighborhood.

"Mind if I help myself to this TV? I mean, you can't take it with you when you die."

More to the point, without a global government you run into the problem of being unable to enforce some laws as long as there are no borders. If there is no border there is nothing to stop a child molestor from fleeing to a nonextradition country, someone from entering the country with goods that are not permitted in one country and are in another, etc. With border control goes Sovereignty.

So then RB, why should we contribute open boarders to the rise in crime when locals are commiting more crimes?

I don't want to look like targeting you for attack. I'm just not convinced that the ONLY thing that has caused the rise in crime is open boarders. And I'm not convinced that it is even a significant contributor. I'd be willing to accept it, I see the causal link and it seems plausible. But I need more evidence.

Then again, they're also rampantly corrupt, like 99% of Third World countries are. It doesn't matter if they're capitalist or socialist, because most of the money winds up in the government's coffers.
What...like corruption doesn't exist in 'First World Countries'? We just happen to have more money to play with and 'make disappear'...

Capitalism and democracy have not made these countries wonderful first world nations, which was my point in naming them.

What...like corruption doesn't exist in 'First World Countries'? We just happen to have more money to play with and 'make disappear'...

Capitalism and democracy have not made these countries wonderful first world nations, which was my point in naming them.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, Third World countries are inherently corrupt. And the left still blames it all on evil colonialists.

Metaphysically... well, I'm not going to go too spiritual on you, but metaphysically borders help to keep energies and spirits in and out of an area. For example, the edge of a graveyard is well marked to seperate it from the community, this is to keep spirits within the confines of that area. As such with the larger borders of countries, to keep their own spiritual realm their own.
*raises eyebrow and backs away slowly* :eek:

It's true, though. Abolishing them would be moronic. Have fun when hordes of rapists, killers, and thugs invade your country.

Good God, you have quite the 'barbarians at the gate fantasy' playing in your mind.

1: I say --- Good. People shouldn't have to lead shitty lives just because they were born in an unfortunate place.

2: True. Opening borders would improve the situation.

3: Which is why opening borders would help this problem. More people would be on equal terms this way.

4: For a short amount of time. Then, it makes it better, because there are more people. The more people there are, the more job opportunities you'll have. Do you see where I'm going with this?

5: For a short amount of time, yes, we would be less wealthy. But, at the same level of a Guatemalan peasant? Pfff.... Please.
so i looked it up as best i could

anyone else having trouble keeping up with this thread??

per capita world income by gnp was $5500 in 2003

quatemala was $1890 (not that bad a guess)

how average income relates to world gnp/capita i can only guess at but there must be a relation.

sooooo an even out world population would mean that the average american would earn somewhere around $11.000 (on the chart the american number was $37610, the average income for a family of 4 in the us in 2003 was $65,000)

http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm

*raises eyebrow and backs away slowly* :eek:

*does the same*

Oooookaaaaay... I think I'll be stepping out of this thread...

It's true, though. Abolishing them would be moronic. Have fun when hordes of rapists, killers, and thugs invade your country.
*sigh*

Ah Roach...no doubt you and your arsenal of guns will keep us safe.

You're talking about possibilities, not certainties...predictions of doom, not predictions of fact. And that's fine. But please, don't think that any of us can take this on face value and say, "Oh, if borders are opened, this will be the result".

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, Third World countries are inherently corrupt. And the left still blames it all on evil colonialists.
Are they completely wrong?

Is the First World inherentely NOT corrupt?

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, Third World countries are inherently corrupt. And the left still blames it all on evil colonialists.

Inherent in the terms of the lack of development in the rule of law and civil society? Well then yes I suppose it is. But there are reasons for this lack of development, perhaps one is colonisation.

Anyway that's another debate for another time.

-snip-

But, this is utterly ridiculous. It assumes that virtually everyone will move to America, thus bringing the average earnings down just that much.

If anything, immigration won't be that much different than it already is. Just a hell of a lot easier.

If anything, immigration won't be that much different than it already is. Just a hell of a lot easier.

Yeah but if it's easier more people would be able to move and take advantage of that opportunity. I think that is pretty self-evident.

Of course you will...but remember...school boards are elected, and choosen from the public. That kind of shit only goes so far:).

*grumbles about school boards*...

so you're obviously saying that the average school board is comprised of cheeky rat bastards...

(per the "misunderstanding Sinuhue's posts" thread... hehe)

Yeah but if it's easier more people would be able to move and take advantage of that opportunity. I think that is pretty self-evident.

Which would make things better in the long run. The more people you have, the better the economy will be. Houston's become a much better place, due to the Mexican immigrant boom. Have wages gone down the crapper? Nope. Has crime skyrocketed? Nope. Has the appearance of the city worsened? It's gotten better.

My problem is that too many people look at the negative, short-term-only effects, such as a temporary economic slump.

Do people determine the level of capital development at any one moment in time? How about the fertility of their farm land? The natural resources at their disposal? Or even the structure of their government?

Yep. If they people are ruled by an abosolute monarch or a Communism, that's it. Castro's Cuba is a good example.

Without the $$, the farms & other resources don't get investments and improvements vis-a-vis technology.

The people most certainly determin the structure of their government.


Brazil.

Brazil's purchasing power parity - $8,100 (2004 est.)
Viet Nam's purchasing power parity - $2,700 (2004 est.)

keep trying! :D

But, this is utterly ridiculous. It assumes that virtually everyone will move to America, thus bringing the average earnings down just that much.

If anything, immigration won't be that much different than it already is. Just a hell of a lot easier.

I don't agree. There is already a long list of people who would like to immigrate to the US but are not allowed. So, yes, it will be much different. The USA has very progressive social policies when compared to the majority of countries in the world while having a pretty good standard of living (better than the majority of countries in the world). This alone is an excellent reason to move to the USA. Everyone wouldn't move here, but there would be a dramatic influx of people who are of a lower economic level than the average American and thus you would see the average economic level in America fall.

But, this is utterly ridiculous. It assumes that virtually everyone will move to America, thus bringing the average earnings down just that much.

If anything, immigration won't be that much different than it already is. Just a hell of a lot easier.
no it assumes that the income of the world would be more fairly distributed geographically than it is now. wasnt that what you wanted? that people could move out of the shitholes they live in now and go to places where they could make a good living? that would mean that the income of the world would be distributed more evenly than it is now.

no it assumes that the income of the world would be more fairly distributed geographically than it is now. wasnt that what you wanted? that people could move out of the shitholes they live in now and go to places where they could make a good living? that would mean that the income of the world would be distributed more evenly than it is now.

Yes, that would be nice. But, you seem to be forgetting that the global economy would be better because of this. The average person certainly wouldn't be living like a Guatemalan peasant.

That was not caused by a lack of borders, but rather by the intent to invade and dominate. And *yoohoo*...we're still here!

If there had been borders and effective government, the white devils would never have made it off the beaches... and certainly not into Ohio.

And that intent would be there without borders! Why would you assume that only enlightened, good-doing types would cross? Why not brigades of brigands? Even whole armies? (Can't take offense... they have every right to be here, too!)

I don't agree. There is already a long list of people who would like to immigrate to the US but are not allowed. So, yes, it will be much different. The USA has very progressive social policies when compared to the majority of countries in the world while having a pretty good standard of living (better than the majority of countries in the world). This alone is an excellent reason to move to the USA. Everyone wouldn't move here, but there would be a dramatic influx of people who are of a lower economic level than the average American and thus you would see the average economic level in America fall.

Yeah, it would fall because the immigrants would be poor in the first place. It doesn't mean the average American citizen would automatically make less money.

Which would make things better in the long run. The more people you have, the better the economy will be. Houston's become a much better place, due to the Mexican immigrant boom. Have wages gone down the crapper? Nope. Has crime skyrocketed? Nope. Has the appearance of the city worsened? It's gotten better.

My problem is that too many people look at the negative, short-term-only effects, such as a temporary economic slump.

This is again, inaccurate. You assume that if people come so will jobs, which is not true. With open borders there is no reason for companies not to move to places where wages are lower. As long as a country has a strong social net (USA has people who are on the bottom rungs of economic standing still well above where people are in many other countries), you will see people willing to move to a country where they may or may not find work. If these people are happy to find work at minimum wage that used to go for more, you will see a fall in the average income.

so you're obviously saying that the average school board is comprised of cheeky rat bastards...

(per the "misunderstanding Sinuhue's posts" thread... hehe)
Actually, that IS what I'm saying :D

Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, etc.etc.etc. Poor by our standads. Rife with violence by our standards.

And all in the 2nd world, and wealthy & law abiding/peaceful, compared to Viet Nam, Sudan, Bangladesh, Congo, Laos, etc. etc. etc.

And all in the 2nd world, and wealthy & law abiding/peaceful, compared to Viet Nam, Sudan, Bangladesh, Congo, Laos, etc. etc. etc.
I'm sorry, but that whole 1st, 2nd and 3rd world crap is a little outdated. Examples of democratic, capitalist countries, not of "1st, 2nd and 3rd" world democratic, capitalist countries. This isn't about "who is MORE violent and MORE poor". It is about a simple answer to a simple question. I don't see why you feel the need to try to invalidate the answers based on completely different criteria.

This is again, inaccurate. You assume that if people come so will jobs, which is not true. With open borders there is no reason for companies not to move to places where wages are lower. As long as a country has a strong social net (USA has people who are on the bottom rungs of economic standing still well above where people are in many other countries), you will see people willing to move to a country where they may or may not find work. If these people are happy to find work at minimum wage that used to go for more, you will see a fall in the average income.

Companies are already outsourcing to other countries, due to the extremely low wages. This isn't an open-borders issue; this is a Capitalism issue.

People come to a city, therefore, the city's population grows. They begin to get jobs. Soon, they will require services. New companies will pop up offering these services (and extra jobs). It may not be instant, but it happens.

Yeah, it would fall because the immigrants would be poor in the first place. It doesn't mean the average American citizen would automatically make less money.

No, generally it would mean some of the poorest American citizens would make less money. Cooks and janitors and busboys, etc. The Middle and Upper class would not be dramatically affected. If you don't care about the lower class of the USA or Canada or most of Europe, go right ahead and open the borders. This is precisely the reason the borders don't open in the USA.

No, generally it would mean some of the poorest American citizens would make less money. Cooks and janitors and busboys, etc. The Middle and Upper class would not be dramatically affected. If you don't care about the lower class of the USA or Canada or most of Europe, go right ahead and open the borders. This is precisely the reason the borders don't open in the USA.

Pfff. So, you're saying that these cooks, janitors, and busboys wouldn't be able to find similar work in new areas of employment in the near future (or even the present)?

You're making it as if no new jobs will be created due to the influx of immigrants. It doesn't happen this way. It never has.

I'm sorry, but that whole 1st, 2nd and 3rd world crap is a little outdated. Examples of democratic, capitalist countries, not of "1st, 2nd and 3rd" world democratic, capitalist countries. This isn't about "who is MORE violent and MORE poor". It is about a simple answer to a simple question. I don't see why you feel the need to try to invalidate the answers based on completely different criteria.

The truth does not become outdated. C'mon! The TRUTH is that the countries which are capitalistic and democratic have BORDER CONTROL and are richer. QED.

Simple question? I've posted and posted all the reasons WHY countries need borders. All your replies have been like this (trying to shuffle it to the side) or "oh yeah?" responses.

Point blank: no borders. What do I gain?

Unless you can come up with an answer that isn't "nothing", you've got no case.

Companies are already outsourcing to other countries, due to the extremely low wages. This isn't an open-borders issue; this is a Capitalism issue.

People come to a city, therefore, the city's population grows. They begin to get jobs. Soon, they will require services. New companies will pop up offering these services (and extra jobs). It may not be instant, but it happens.

This works when people are moving within the same economy and are held to similar standards. This does not work when moving through different economies. Currently in America, basically, illegal immigrants are tolerant if they are willing to work. However, when immigrants can legally cross the border and are permitted to burden the state system, things will become a problem. You assume that this job creation will be commensurate with the current economical levels of the country. This isn't necessarily true. It's a supply and demand culture. If their is a more than adequate supply of workers then there will be a drop in what workers are paid due to natural economic forces. Eventually it will level out when the economy of the USA or any similar country is no longer desirable to immigrants on a large scale. However, at that point the economy will have strongly dipped. There will never be a reason to raise the general wages. In fact, this trend has occurred in the past and, if not for government interference and unions (back when they were useful), this would still be a problem.

If there had been borders and effective government, the white devils would never have made it off the beaches... and certainly not into Ohio.

the aztecs certainly had borders and 'effective government'. they only lost because smallpox wiped out a significant portion of their population after they chased the spaniards out the first time. after that, it was all over, and the disease went out like a wave, typically moving just ahead of the colonizers.

Pfff. So, you're saying that these cooks, janitors, and busboys wouldn't be able to find similar work in new areas of employment in the near future (or even the present)?

You're making it as if no new jobs will be created due to the influx of immigrants. It doesn't happen this way. It never has.

That's actually simply not true. It doesn't work that way because borders are controlled right now. Economists study the nature of the economy of the country and make recommendations on tariffs and such. Without unnatural forces things would not work this way. There would be a natural leveling that would improve countries that are below the average status of the world and drag down countries above the world average. The farther you are from the average, USA, UK, Canada, Germany, etc., the more dramatic the effect. As someone as Markreich asked above, what would the USA or any similar country have to gain by open borders.

-snip-

Then, there would simply be new laws enacted to help matters.

And, the reason Unions are "no longer effective", as you put it, is because corporations are getting too much power, both economically and in the government.

-snip-

Then again, what would people below us have to lose by opening borders? It's all a matter of how selfish you are.

the aztecs certainly had borders and 'effective government'. they only lost because smallpox wiped out a significant portion of their population after they chased the spaniards out the first time. after that, it was all over, and the disease went out like a wave, typically moving just ahead of the colonizers.

Right. And Poland fell for 123 years even though it had borders, too.

I'm not saying that borders are the fix for *everything*. Obviously, that's not the case. But they solve a LOT more problems than they create.

The truth does not become outdated. C'mon! The TRUTH is that the countries which are capitalistic and democratic have BORDER CONTROL and are richer. QED.
This is ridiculous. The nations I listed are both capitalistic and democratic, and hey, guess what, they have border controls too. Capitalism, democracy and border controls do not inherently create wealth.

Simple question? I've posted and posted all the reasons WHY countries need borders. All your replies have been like this (trying to shuffle it to the side) or "oh yeah?" responses. No, you've given predictions which are impossible to prove. This whole issue is impossible to prove one way or another.

Point blank: no borders. What do I gain?

Unless you can come up with an answer that isn't "nothing", you've got no case.No, I've only got suppositions, just like you. You go ahead and take that as nothing. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to find out why people support borders, and that so far, is successful. This is not a manifesto.

Then again, what would people below us have to lose by opening borders? It's all a matter of how selfish you are.

Have you ever travelled? I mean really travelled (not a family vaction)?

I'm not saying this to be snide, I want to know what your perspective of the world is.

Point blank: no borders. What do I gain?

a free society

Have you ever travelled? I mean really travelled (not a family vaction)?

I'm not saying this to be snide, I want to know what your perspective of the world is.
Hi kettle, I'm pot. Talk about deflection.

This is a red herring. Even if he travelled the world twice, that doesn't guarantee a good world perspective...especially is he never left his hotel room in the process.

What exactly are you trying to find out?

Point blank: no borders. What do I gain?


No 'illegal' immigrants to be scared of :D

No tax dollars wasted on border controls.

Knowing people divided by borders can rejoin their families.

Knowing you are allowing a basic human right...the right of movement.

But these are not concrete enough for you, no doubt. Can I bribe you will lollypops? :p

I'm not saying this to be snide

Seems to me that it's exactly what you're doing.

Then, there would simply be new laws enacted to help matters.

And, the reason Unions are "no longer effective", as you put it, is because corporations are getting too much power, both economically and in the government.

The reason unions are no longer effective is because they have rallied too much power and they have become just as corrupt as corporations. They are an excellent idea that was not regulated properly and are even openly permitted to commit crimes. There is a law on the books that says that union is not responsible for the actions of its members on its behalf. For example, I can stand up at the podium during a union meeting and suggest that union members attack someone in management and I am protected by the fact that I am in the union. There is almost no entity that receives the same protection as a union. As you noted, power breeds corruption.

As a consultant in the maintenance arena, I have been consistently warned against suggesting changes that might weaken a union as there might be physical danger in such an act. This has been told to me by corporate, union and government officials. I'm not suggesting that the actual acts of violence are widespread, but even threatening them is a crime.

The new laws enacted would have to essentially reenact border policies. People would have to become registered citizens of a country (tax purposes and for adjustment of services and setting funding). People would have to be controlled in order to prevent the avoidance of prosecution. Goods would have to be controlled for security purposes. And so on.

This is ridiculous. The nations I listed are both capitalistic and democratic, and hey, guess what, they have border controls too. Capitalism, democracy and border controls do not inherently create wealth.

No, you've given predictions which are impossible to prove. This whole issue is impossible to prove one way or another.

No, I've only got suppositions, just like you. You go ahead and take that as nothing. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to find out why people support borders, and that so far, is successful. This is not a manifesto.

We would gain nothing by removing national borders but l;ots of countrys would still seperate themsselves by language and a traveller being one of them not one of us. All it would create is a them and us society with no physical borders

Also several nations would shrink eg bavarians would not welcome north Germans Cornwall would not except ouhter southeners etc

It also makes it easier for governments to tax us, hospital give us treatment and also if their were no borders there would be no countrys which would make you lose national identity

There would be a natural leveling that would improve countries that are below the average status of the world and drag down countries above the world average. The farther you are from the average, USA, UK, Canada, Germany, etc., the more dramatic the effect. As someone as Markreich asked above, what would the USA or any similar country have to gain by open borders.

assuming that this is true, so what? privilege should be abolished, not defended. and borders are already largely open for the capitalists, who in their drive for even greater riches are already closing shop in countries with even token labor laws in favor of moving to places where they can exploit people ruthlessly. open borders for people will at least serve as a counter-balance to that bullshit.

Then again, what would people below us have to lose by opening borders? It's all a matter of how selfish you are.

It is the job of the government of a country to be selfish to some extent. It is a much more effective stance to have countries with good economic and social policies help other countries improve while simultaneously doing things to support the people of that country, e.g. exporting food. With open borders and no global government, you effectively take away any reasoning for a country to improve social policies to a great degree and economic policies to a lesser degree. You also make the economic and social policies of another country you have no control over affect the economic and social policies of your country.

assuming that this is true, so what? privilege should be abolished, not defended. and borders are already largely open for the capitalists, who in their drive for even greater riches are already closing shop in countries with even token labor laws in favor of moving to places where they can exploit people ruthlessly. open borders for people will at least serve as a counter-balance to that bullshit.

*carts you a massive crate of cookies*

Joc...where's Dem? I thought you two were joined at the hip? :D

*carts you a massive crate of cookies*
You and your cookies...

Mmmmmm....

Hmmmm...I think this belongs in the "twist my words to suit you" thread....

No, it's not twisting words. It's being realistic about what complete freedom of trade and capital actually entails.

And so have many other ethnicities and cultures around the world. Are you saying borders will stop that? Or that lack of borders caused it?
Yes. The Natives did not estrablish or protect their borders, so a combination of invaders and immigrants annihilated them.

Hey, I live in Houston with hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants, and wages have gone up, if anything. And, you can find a job virtually anywhere, which is good.
I suggest you talk to Ashmoria. Where I live Chinese workers are willing to work for less. Now, I don't think that they should all be kept out, because we need good workers, but the fact is that the only thing that has prevented the wages going down has been the government's regularly increasing the minimum wage.

Am I middle class? Now? Yes. Would I be unable to survive if I didn't have a tv, a van, my job?

No. Are these things truly important to me?

No. My children and my husband and my family are...and these are not things dictated by possessions.
This is vomitously sentimental. TV, van, true you don't need these. Job? You need it to earn money. Try living without possessions such as a home and food. Your family is an important aspect of your quality of life, but you need some possessions to have an adequate quality of life.

It's an idea, a concept...but apparently it really pisses people off...
Not really; this thread is rather flame-free.

It's true, though. Abolishing them would be moronic. Have fun when hordes of rapists, killers, and thugs invade your country.
Alright I'm in favour of borders, but this is just paranoid.

What...like corruption doesn't exist in 'First World Countries'? We just happen to have more money to play with and 'make disappear'...
Sinuhue you have no idea, yes we have corruption in the first world, but it's nothing like on the scale of third-world corruption. In many places in Africa it's unbelievable. The blame for the unending poverty of Africa can be largely laid at the feet of the corrupt governments there.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, Third World countries are inherently corrupt. And the left still blames it all on evil colonialists.
The left is partially right. Look at Africa and Asia. The former colonies of France (which was very bad at colonial management) are generally in a worse state than those of Britain (which was relatively good at it).

This is ridiculous. The nations I listed are both capitalistic and democratic, and hey, guess what, they have border controls too. Capitalism, democracy and border controls do not inherently create wealth.


"Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama" -- ALL of which are richer than any non-capitalist nation.

China's purchasing power parity - $5,600 (2004 est.)
Argentina's purchasing power parity - $12,400 (2004 est.)
Peru's purchasing power parity - $5,600 (2004 est.)
Bolivia's purchasing power parity - $2,600 (2004 est.)
El Salvador's purchasing power parity - $4,900 (2004 est.)
Nicaragua's purchasing power parity - $2,300 (2004 est.)
Hondouras's purchasing power parity - $2,800 (2004 est.)
Panama's purchasing power parity - $6,900 (2004 est.)

So... China, the SECOND LARGEST country economy on EARTH (in PPP terms, not counting the EU, as it is not a country) has a per person wealth that's in the running with nations many times smaller in every possible term -- population, land, etc.

Consider China vs the other 4 nations on the UN Security Council:
China's purchasing power parity - $5,600 (2004 est.)
France's purchasing power parity - $28,700 (2004 est.)
Russia's purchasing power parity - $9,800 (2004 est.)
UK's purchasing power parity - $29,600 (2004 est.)
United State's purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.)

Hmm. And the gulf between China and the rest was WIDER before China started to embrace capitalist reform!! Russia is still recovering from being non-capitalist, and the $4,200 difference in wealth per capita shows that.

Re: Border control: Are you kidding? The borders in South America are a joke!

No, you've given predictions which are impossible to prove. This whole issue is impossible to prove one way or another.

Untrue. You've yet to prove that large groups of people roaming the world without controls and laws would not ruin whole economies. Shoot, have you even seen the clean-up up of a big concert, like Woodstock? Lots of people moving around to one place make a mess of things, ESPECIALLY because the law isn't really enforceable.

No, I've only got suppositions, just like you. You go ahead and take that as nothing. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to find out why people support borders, and that so far, is successful. This is not a manifesto.

Fair enough. :)

I suggest you talk to Ashmoria. Where I live Chinese workers are willing to work for less. Now, I don't think that they should all be kept out, because we need good workers, but the fact is that the only thing that has prevented the wages going down has been the government's regularly increasing the minimum wage.

Why would it be any different? Seems to me that it would be logical to place minimum wage laws on immigrant/migrant workers as well.

assuming that this is true, so what? privilege should be abolished, not defended. and borders are already largely open for the capitalists, who in their drive for even greater riches are already closing shop in countries with even token labor laws in favor of moving to places where they can exploit people ruthlessly. open borders for people will at least serve as a counter-balance to that bullshit.

People follow jobs or social support. So corporations will move to places where they are permitted to exploit people and people will happily go to places where they can find work. To be fair, other people will go where they can find social policies to support them. This will eventually cause a leveling.

The only thing that prevents corporations from doing exactly that you say is tariffs. Tariffs require borders, quite simply. You don't make the world better by dragging down the best, but by lifting up the underpriveleged. You are not suggesting lifting up the underpriveleged at all. To lift up the underpriveleged, economic and social policies must be changed in countries that allow corporations to exploit at the levels you have mentioned. This is a far more effective way to improve the status of the world. I would support a world-wide minimum wage (requires a world government). I would support world-wide minimum social support (requires a world government). Short of that, we can only act as leaders in this arena and encourage other countries to improve their policies. When economic and social policies of countries are comparable then and only then will open borders make sense. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Point blank: no borders. What do I gain?


a free society

We've already got that: The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and just about the whole of Europe.

I'm not saying that borders are the fix for *everything*. Obviously, that's not the case. But they solve a LOT more problems than they create.

so you didn't say

If there had been borders and effective government, the white devils would never have made it off the beaches... and certainly not into Ohio.?

Hi kettle, I'm pot. Talk about deflection.

This is a red herring. Even if he travelled the world twice, that doesn't guarantee a good world perspective...especially is he never left his hotel room in the process.

What exactly are you trying to find out?

I'm trying to figure out *both* your and Potaria's the world views. Seriously.

I'm trying to figure out *both* your and Potaria's the world views. Seriously.

Just as I'm trying to figure out (what the hell is up with) yours.

No 'illegal' immigrants to be scared of :D

No tax dollars wasted on border controls.

Knowing people divided by borders can rejoin their families.

Knowing you are allowing a basic human right...the right of movement.

But these are not concrete enough for you, no doubt. Can I bribe you will lollypops? :p

Yep. Now just be scared of everyone on the street, since there is no law. :(

Or on anything else, since there is no money anymore.

I'm sure the 0.001% of the world's population that is effected by that will be grateful.

Not if EVERY country doesn't agree.

Depends. Can I bribe you with this? This is the sort of world a borderless one would be, without having the entire planet first be at the same income level and currency:
http://www.treefort.org/~cbdoten/rvntanks/sp071632.jpg

Yep. Now just be scared of everyone on the street, since there is no law. :(

What the hell?

Or on anything else, since there is no money anymore.

See above comment.

I'm sure the 0.001% of the world's population that is effected by that will be grateful.

See comment two spaces above.

Just as I'm trying to figure out (what the hell is up with) yours.

I've seen four Communist governments in the 80s (one under martial law). I've seen the socialists march on May Day in Vienna. I've seen someone shot in an American city over $31 dollars. I've played golf in Myrtle Beach, SC.

My point? I've yet to be anywhere as good as in the 1st world. And the idea of the taking it all down is not only pointless, it's pathetic. It's nothing but a guilty feeling for having more than others, ala the 60's hippies. Desperation = crime. And open borders = new hunting grounds.

No matter what, so long as there is currency, there will be a rich/poor divide. It's better to stay closer to the first half of that equation.

What the hell?



See above comment.



See comment two spaces above.

How many times need I point out that without borders, there is no law since there is no government?

How many times need I point out that without borders, there is no law since there is no government?

at least one more time, since your point is silly. having open borders in terms of human movement has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the drawing of jurisdictional boundries for governance.

You don't make the world better by dragging down the best, but by lifting up the underpriveleged. You are not suggesting lifting up the underpriveleged at all. To lift up the underpriveleged, economic and social policies must be changed in countries that allow corporations to exploit at the levels you have mentioned. This is a far more effective way to improve the status of the world. I would support a world-wide minimum wage (requires a world government). I would support world-wide minimum social support (requires a world government). Short of that, we can only act as leaders in this arena and encourage other countries to improve their policies. When economic and social policies of countries are comparable then and only then will open borders make sense. You're putting the cart before the horse.

so, your idea is to form some sort of world government to force the ruling elites of most of the countries in the world to act against their own best interests of signing 'free' trade agreements and keeping their labor force starving and afraid? and this world government will magically not wind up being run by the rich elite who benefit from the current system?

and we should use tariffs as part of this policy, even though the main point of tariffs is to allow favored capitalists to make money without even keeping up with technology to make their factories efficient, and the main effect is to keep poor people poor?

*gives a round of applause and another crate of cookies to Free Soviets*

Thanks for helping out, man.

I'm sorry if anyone has responded in a similar manner, I haven't yet seen all the replies since I signed out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikitas
Do people determine the level of capital development at any one moment in time? How about the fertility of their farm land? The natural resources at their disposal? Or even the structure of their government?



Yep. If they people are ruled by an abosolute monarch or a Communism, that's it. Castro's Cuba is a good example.

Without the $$, the farms & other resources don't get investments and improvements vis-a-vis technology.

The people most certainly determin the structure of their government.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikitas

Brazil.



Brazil's purchasing power parity - $8,100 (2004 est.)
Viet Nam's purchasing power parity - $2,700 (2004 est.)

keep trying!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I didn't say anything about long-term availability of money for investment. No one controls how much capital there is available at any one moment in time, only in the long-run do people have influence. Also, it is just influence and not control because hundreds of international actors, who are outside your sphere of influence, making decisions based on factors which are hardely controllable by the individual truly determine the rate of capital development in a developing nation.

Furthermore, you defeated your own arguement by pointing out dictatorships. Obviously people have no control over a dictatorship. And saying that they could always rebel is meaningless. Rebellion is the surest sign that a group doesn't have control and is thus resisting.

2) Ah so a moderately developed, yet still impoverished (especially in the rural areas), nation is rich because there are other nations that are yet poorer? Hey since you are nice enough to pull up some stats for us, why not compare Brazil's per capita GDP to, say, wealthy developed nations. And hey, since you are doing that why not also look at the real state of their economy. Complete with rising inflation and insanely high nominal interest rates.

Stop trying!

Oh and I forgot, in responce to Patorian and the long-run benfits of immigration:

I totally agree and I wasn't trying to say anything to the contrary. I was just pointing out that making movement across boarders easier will mean more immigrants.

and we should use tariffs as part of this policy, even though the main point of tariffs is to allow favored capitalists to make money without even keeping up with technology to make their factories efficient, and the main effect is to keep poor people poor?


Eh... where did Jacobia mention tariffs in the excerpt you quoted?

I'd like to see a world without borders, myself. Is it gonna happen? Not anytime soon...

What do you have against Borders? It happens to be my favorite bookstore! :D

I saw some questions on what advantage there is, economically, to open borders. As Potaria and others have alluded to nothing in the short-run.

The per capita income of wealthy nations will decrease. Prices would probably rise before they fall as wages won't get much cheaper but there will be more demand for goods as more people are making more money.

But in the long-term, developing nations will have incentives to reform their financial and legal systems as they lose workers and tax dollars to wealthier, developed, nations. There is billions, if not more, of dollars in wealth in emerging markets that is hidden by inadequate financial markets and arcane legal codes. When this wealth is unlocked the entire world will enjoy a higher quality of life as there will be much more investment in and production of good and services.

As it stands right now we are sitting on a gold mine and doing nothing about it. Open borders may provide the encouragement to tap into our unused resources.

This is vomitously sentimental. TV, van, true you don't need these. Job? You need it to earn money. Try living without possessions such as a home and food. Your family is an important aspect of your quality of life, but you need some possessions to have an adequate quality of life.
*sigh*
Your tone, as usual, leaves something to be desired. But go on an trivialise my description of what actually has importance in my life. I grew up in a one room farm house, heated with a wood-fired cookstove. Before you think I'm being nostalgic, I'll let you know that my parents still live there. Willingly. Why? Because for the most part, they still live off the land. As can I. What possessions exactly do you deem necessary? Do you really think that it is an impossibility to build your own home...cheaply I might add, instead of going into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt? Do you really think it is impossible to grow enough food to support yourself and your family? There is very little you could strip of me that I could not do without. That's not sentimental, that's fact. My children, my husband, my family...these are the things that you could not strip from me without there being real damage. We need jobs, and we need to work so damn hard because we live our lives in debt. I choose not to.

"Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama" -- ALL of which are richer than any non-capitalist nation.


Perhaps you forgotten what you actually asked. Let me refresh your memory for you:



Where? Name me ONE capitalist, democratic country that is poor and rife with violence. Just one.


I named you more than one. Then you said, "Oh, but those countries are better off than these ones"...

Not the point. You were asserting that no democratic, capitalist countries existed in poverty and violence. In fact, the majority of them do. Whether or not they are better off than 'communist' countries bears no relevence.




Re: Border control: Are you kidding? The borders in South America are a joke!
Why, because you can walk accross them...oh wait...you can do that in the US and Canada too. They are no less a joke than ours.

We've already got that: The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and just about the whole of Europe.
Yeah, and WE'RE the only ones that matter, right?

Yep. Now just be scared of everyone on the street, since there is no law. :(

Or on anything else, since there is no money anymore.

I'm sure the 0.001% of the world's population that is effected by that will be grateful.

Not if EVERY country doesn't agree.

Depends. Can I bribe you with this? This is the sort of world a borderless one would be, without having the entire planet first be at the same income level and currency:
http://www.treefort.org/~cbdoten/rvntanks/sp071632.jpg
Guesses, conjectures, predictions...but hey, par for the course.

At least I'm honest about mine.

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.

Try the moon. .

My point? I've yet to be anywhere as good as in the 1st world.
That is YOUR opinion of what 'as good as' means. YOUR worldview, YOUR opinion.

And the idea of the taking it all down is not only pointless, it's pathetic. It's nothing but a guilty feeling for having more than others, ala the 60's hippies. Desperation = crime. And open borders = new hunting grounds.
Oh. I see. Open borders=destroying western civilization. I had no idea that our borders were the only advantage we have.

No matter what, so long as there is currency, there will be a rich/poor divide. It's better to stay closer to the first half of that equation.Oh. I see. Open borders=the destruction of currency. Currency is the cause of the gap between rich and poor. I had no idea it was such an insidious actor on the world stage./sarcasm

What do you have against Borders? It happens to be my favorite bookstore! :D
#3
:D

*sigh*
Your tone, as usual, leaves something to be desired. But go on an trivialise my description of what actually has importance in my life. I grew up in a one room farm house, heated with a wood-fired cookstove. Before you think I'm being nostalgic, I'll let you know that my parents still live there. Willingly. Why? Because for the most part, they still live off the land. As can I. What possessions exactly do you deem necessary? Do you really think that it is an impossibility to build your own home...cheaply I might add, instead of going into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt? Do you really think it is impossible to grow enough food to support yourself and your family? There is very little you could strip of me that I could not do without. That's not sentimental, that's fact. My children, my husband, my family...these are the things that you could not strip from me without there being real damage. We need jobs, and we need to work so damn hard because we live our lives in debt. I choose not to.
Ah, and before you say something like, "Oh, but not everyone can do this," remember that the majority of the people in the world come from rural roots. Urbanization is not a trend that can not be reversed once it is actually viable to produce ones own crops again. Shifting away from cash crops and back to staple foods would allow people to remain on their lands, and be much more self-sufficient. For those who still choose to remain urban, a higher price (rather than the LOWER price they currently pay) should be paid for their food.

Whew. I don't think you understand the concept of open borders.

I understand the concept, but open borders are much like Communism, it seems to make sense on paper, in fact it might actually be a good idea, but when put into practice, it fails miserably. A good portion of my paycheck every other week goes to welfare for people who decided to just skip the legal way of doing stuff and coming here for free money and whining about how no one respects them. I refuse to give handouts to people who have no regard for the natural order of things. I have no problem with welfare, i think it can be a good thing, but i have a problem with states giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Driving is a privilege, not a right, especially for people who break the law.

Open borders might also work if we weren't in the state we're in today, you can't just let anyone in free to roam anymore after 9/11... it's just not possible.

so, your idea is to form some sort of world government to force the ruling elites of most of the countries in the world to act against their own best interests of signing 'free' trade agreements and keeping their labor force starving and afraid? and this world government will magically not wind up being run by the rich elite who benefit from the current system?

and we should use tariffs as part of this policy, even though the main point of tariffs is to allow favored capitalists to make money without even keeping up with technology to make their factories efficient, and the main effect is to keep poor people poor?

One, where did I say the world government should act against the interest of it's own people by offering free trade? Where did I even imply it? I suggested until you create a world government or something similar to enforce standards that level the playing field for all countries (like minimum wage laws) then open borders are a bad idea.

Two, how does your opening of borders do anything different than create free trade? Are you going to say that people can enter the country but they have to leave their possessions behind? Are you going to tax their possessions to the point where only rich people can afford to cross borders?

Three, you say you don't want free trade and then you say tariffs are bad as well. Which is it? What do you propose you do to restrict trade without tariffs?

Just because people have twisted governments, tariffs, capitalism, and almost everything else to their own bad ends doesn't make these things inherently bad. It means that we have to regulate them so the corruption is limited. You are suggesting removing regulation (borders) with no replacement. This allows for more corruption not less.

You know Sinuhue, what I think Markreich was trying to get at with the "name one..." is that he wanted us to find a wealthy and developed capitalist democracy that was poor and ridden with violence.

If I could manage that I think for my next trick I would find a horse that was, in fact, a dog.

Yes, they can move while still respecting borders.



its quite hard


a lot of ppl live in sweden illegally.



an basic equalization of infrastructure across borders would be nice

I understand the concept, but open borders are much like Communism, it seems to make sense on paper, in fact it might actually be a good idea, but when put into practice, it fails miserably.

How can you possibly say that when it has not been tried? Seriously. Do people here have some sort of time machine? I'm amazed that they are able to say these things with such certainty.

its quite hard


a lot of ppl live in sweden illegally.
And as we all know, Sweden has since become a cesspool of poverty and crime.

I suggested until you create a world government or something similar to enforce standards that level the playing field for all countries (like minimum wage laws) then open borders are a bad idea.

the 'playing field' isn't level between troy, idaho and the gold coast of chicago, and yet there don't seem to be any horrific problems caused specifically by the ability of people to freely move from one to the other. maybe you see some that i don't?

Two, how does your opening of borders do anything different than create free trade? Are you going to say that people can enter the country but they have to leave their possessions behind? Are you going to tax their possessions to the point where only rich people can afford to cross borders?

well you see, freedom of movement is a fundamental aspect of individual liberty, and should be fought for. current 'free' trade policies do not focus on this, prefering to focus on the free flow of wealth from the labor of the poor to the pockets of the rich.

Three, you say you don't want free trade and then you say tariffs are bad as well. Which is it? What do you propose you do to restrict trade without tariffs?

oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize the only way to oppose neoliberalism is to be a reactionary fuck like pat buchanan. i must not have gotten the memo. and here was me being in favor of socializing and democratizing the economy. i guess its that outdated internationalist thing i have going on.

oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize the only way to oppose neoliberalism is to be a reactionary fuck like pat buchanan. i must not have gotten the memo. and here was me being in favor of socializing and democratizing the economy. i guess its that outdated internationalist thing i have going on.
Sorry Jocabia, but...

FS...can I have your children? I've already proven my ability twice.... :D

A good portion of my paycheck every other week goes to welfare for people who decided to just skip the legal way of doing stuff and coming here for free money and whining about how no one respects them.

care to even try to back that up?


I refuse to give handouts to people who have no regard for the natural order of things.

haha, "natural order of things"

You know Sinuhue, what I think Markreich was trying to get at with the "name one..." is that he wanted us to find a wealthy and developed capitalist democracy that was poor and ridden with violence.

If I could manage that I think for my next trick I would find a horse that was, in fact, a dog.

But was born... A horse!

the 'playing field' isn't level between troy, idaho and the gold coast of chicago, and yet there don't seem to be any horrific problems caused specifically by the ability of people to freely move from one to the other. maybe you see some that i don't?

The minimum wage is different in Idaho and Chicago? Is there not a minimum social net that catches you when you fall in both places? I was specific in my point and it clearly holds for the example you used. The problem is not that people don't have the same economic mobility in other places, it's that companies (you know those things that provide jobs) have an HUGE advantage when operating in a country with no minimum wage laws, environmental safety laws, worker safety laws, etc. At same time when social programs don't exist in some countries people are encouraged to move to places that do have social programs. Thus without minimum standards people are encouraged to move to the USA for social programs and to other countries for work and companies are encouraged to those same other countries because they can operate more cheaply (if borders are open). Last I check all of these examples are pretty standard across the USA.

well you see, freedom of movement is a fundamental aspect of individual liberty, and should be fought for. current 'free' trade policies do not focus on this, prefering to focus on the free flow of wealth from the labor of the poor to the pockets of the rich.

Yes, well, that's all well and good to say, but you don't get to tell a sovereign nation how to run itself no matter how much you'd like to. I think you'd be hard-pressed to get the majority of people to agree that freedom of movement is a fundamental aspect of individual liberty.

Let's say we do away with all land ownership, all borders, all fences. I plant a garden for my family to live off of and your family just waits until it comes up and you pick everything and feed your family with while mine starves. Nothing wrong with that, right? I mean I don't own the garden or the land it's on. If NO ONE owns anything how do you propose we feed ourselves.

oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize the only way to oppose neoliberalism is to be a reactionary fuck like pat buchanan. i must not have gotten the memo. and here was me being in favor of socializing and democratizing the economy. i guess its that outdated internationalist thing i have going on.

So let me see if I have this (dammit, Sin, but you make it difficult to paraphrase someone for understanding without sounding like an idiot since you made that damn thread) - you want free trade but not for the reasons and in the form that it has currently taken (my guess is in agreements like NAFTA), yeah?

Can I state categorically, once again, that I don't agree with free trade? I think it encourages countries to exploit workers, consumers and the environment. Without regulation, companies will always do that because it maximizes profit.

Sorry Jocabia, but...

FS...can I have your children? I've already proven my ability twice.... :D

Whore!

omg Sinner we NEED borders (as well as any other imaginary distinction we make that separates us from other people) so that we know who to love/hate right away.

oh and if it isnt clear the formula is this:

love ourselves, our team, our country, our race, our religion/hate theirs

Let's say we do away with all land ownership, all borders, all fences. I plant a garden for my family to live off of and your family just waits until it comes up and you pick everything and feed your family with while mine starves. Nothing wrong with that, right? I mean I don't own the garden or the land it's on. If NO ONE owns anything how do you propose we feed ourselves.

Where did FS say that we should abolish land ownership? Oh that's right, he didn't.


Yes, well, that's all well and good to say, but you don't get to tell a sovereign nation how to run itself no matter how much you'd like to. I think you'd be hard-pressed to get the majority of people to agree that freedom of movement is a fundamental aspect of individual liberty.

And where did FS say that nations will no longer be sovereign? That they would not be able to make their own laws? Yep, nowhere.

Hey if you're going to be making things up to advance your arguements can you at least be creative and do it in the form of a catchy jingle?

oh and if it isnt clear the formula is this:

love ourselves, our team, our country, our race, our religion/hate theirs
excellent summary of reality!

Hey if you're going to be making things up to advance your arguements can you at least be creative and do it in the form of a catchy jingle?

I second this motion.

How many times need I point out that without borders, there is no law since there is no government?

at least one more time, since your point is silly. having open borders in terms of human movement has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the drawing of jurisdictional boundries for governance.

Then name me a place that does it. Even the EU, which has open borders
WITHIN itself, doesn't allow Ukrainians to just walk in... :p

Borders = sovereignty = security.

Originally Posted by Markreich
We've already got that: The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and just about the whole of Europe.

Yeah, and WE'RE the only ones that matter, right?

Still waiting for someone to tell me what Canada or the US gains by opening up the borders to all comers vs. having our (current) controlled immigration policies.

Yep. And unless you've taken a vow of poverty, you're no different than me.

You know Sinuhue, what I think Markreich was trying to get at with the "name one..." is that he wanted us to find a wealthy and developed capitalist democracy that was poor and ridden with violence.

If I could manage that I think for my next trick I would find a horse that was, in fact, a dog.

Thanks. :)

Guesses, conjectures, predictions...but hey, par for the course.

At least I'm honest about mine.

Now you're just being insulting, and not for the first time. Goodbye.

Where did FS say that we should abolish land ownership? Oh that's right, he didn't.

Well, I assume if you're not allowed to restrict human movement then you really don't believe in land ownership. Why, you ask. Well, let's say I own a bull and I want to keep him. How do I do so without fencing him in? I don't. How do I keep kids from playing in a junk yard where they might get hurt? I have an idea, fences. How do I keep people from bringing drugs (for the record, I totally disagree with drug laws) into a country where drugs are illegal? I have an idea, friggin' borders. Now within the US you have things like fireworks that are illegal to have in certain states and legal in others, but if you check this out there actually is a huge amount of illegally trasporting across state borders. It would be considered a huge problem if anyone really cared. Since I don't really care about drugs and you may not, how about terrorism? How do I keep out bombs and whatnot without borders?

And where did FS say that nations will no longer be sovereign? That they would not be able to make their own laws? Yep, nowhere.

As someone pointed out borders make for security which ensures sovereignty. But let's be more specific. Let's say I want to have tariffs. Certainly within my rights as a sovereign nation, yeah? Well, someone from my country goes over the border and buys a car that needs to be taxed in my country and drives it over. We have open borders, am I going to tax the hell out the car when he drives it across? Well, sure, I could do that which is fine if it's some rich guy who deserves to be taxed but what about the poor person from some country that barely has a pot to piss in, do I take away their pot when they enter because they can't afford the taxes?

Laws don't go out the window, that's clear. But some would be incredibly hard to enforce.

Hey if you're going to be making things up to advance your arguements can you at least be creative and do it in the form of a catchy jingle?

Sure. (Sing to the tune of rice-a-roni) Communism, it doesn't fucking work. Communism, cause people all are jerks.

Well, I assume if you're not allowed to restrict human movement then you really don't believe in land ownership. Why, you ask. Well, let's say I own a bull and I want to keep him. How do I do so without fencing him in?

False analogy. Movement between private property is totally unlike movement between borders.

As someone pointed out borders make for security which ensures sovereignty.

And he/she/they have failed to realise that borders are just lines on paper or natural barriers, such as rivers. Unmonitored imaginary lines do not security provide. Hrmm... yes... Yoda listen to you must.

Let's say I want to have tariffs. Certainly within my rights as a sovereign nation, yeah? Well, someone from my country goes over the border and buys a car that needs to be taxed in my country and drives it over. We have open borders, am I going to tax the hell out the car when he drives it across? Well, sure, I could do that which is fine if it's some rich guy who deserves to be taxed but what about the poor person from some country that barely has a pot to piss in, do I take away their pot when they enter because they can't afford the taxes?

Those aren't tariffs... But anyway. This happens all the time, what's your point? U.S. senior citizens transverse borders for cheap drugs because they have a magic ticket - a U.S. passport. But heck of a chance that a Mexcian senior citizen can move across the border for better healthcare in the U.S. And of course immigrants would be subject to taxes and laws of their new home. We are argueing for free movement, not immunity.

Laws don't go out the window, that's clear. But some would be incredibly hard to enforce.

I totally agree, but why shouldn't we do something that is economically beneficial and promotes democracy and fairness because it is hard?

Sure. (Sing to the tune of rice-a-roni) Communism, it doesn't fucking work. Communism, cause people all are jerks.

Meh... I've heard it before. You can still have a :fluffle: though.

False analogy. Movement between private property is totally unlike movement between borders.

It's not false. He said freedom of movement is a right. That doesn't limit it to borders. What's the difference between a border and a yard? The owner is a smaller entity. Are you really saying that movement across imaginary lines drawn by countries is a right, but movement across imaginary lines drawn by individuals is not? Was FS saying that? If so, perhaps he/she should have been more specific so I could have just laughed and saved my reply.

And he/she/they have failed to realise that borders are just lines on paper or natural barriers, such as rivers. Unmonitored imaginary lines do not security provide. Hrmm... yes... Yoda listen to you must.

Restricting who crosses those borders is security. Imaginary or not, we force people to respect them and this provides security for our country and others.

Those aren't tariffs... But anyway. This happens all the time, what's your point? U.S. senior citizens transverse borders for cheap drugs because they have a magic ticket - a U.S. passport. But heck of a chance that a Mexcian senior citizen can move across the border for better healthcare in the U.S. And of course immigrants would be subject to taxes and laws of their new home. We are argueing for free movement, not immunity.

No, if borders are open then tariffs don't work (or are at least hard to enforce) and you have to use other means of taxation. Like other things, this is illegal. However, Canada has a level enough playing ground with us that we don't mind having a semi-open border policy with them (you don't need a passport to travel from the US to Canada). As I pointed out, open borders do make sense, if you have some way of forcing other countries to have minimum standards that allow for some reasonable 'competition' in the capitalist system shared by most of the world. Canada and Mexico are perfect examples of this. Mexico does not have a reasonable social support system, worker's rights or industrial laws and this is one of the main reasons we don't open the borders with them.

Yes, they are subject to the laws and taxes of their new home if they claim it as their home. That is not the current status of the law. Canada, which essentially has an open border policy with us allows for me to go and work in Canada and pay taxes in the US since that is where I receive services, etc. Similarly people come to the US from Canada and pay taxes in Canada. This is fairly standard.

I totally agree, but why shouldn't we do something that is economically beneficial and promotes democracy and fairness because it is hard?

It won't be economically beneficial for the US and it doesn't promote democracy in any way shape or form. You could argue that it promotes fairness by only looking at certain things (like it would improve the economies of developing nations) but I would argue that it discourages fairness by only looking at certain things (like it would allow countries with no industrial laws or worker's rights to compete equally with countries that have them).

Meh... I've heard it before. You can still have a :fluffle: though.

I made that up so I don't know how you've heard it before, but thanks for the fluffle. :fluffle:

1: If you're living in a home that's difficult to pay for, you shouldn't be living there in the first place.

2: A vacation, or Holiday, is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be an ultra-expensive cruise across the Atlantic. I, for one, don't see how people think of such things as a vacation.

3: If you're buying the "latest CD's", you've got more problems than I care to guess.
So you live in a box, have never taken a holiday and don't listen to music?

Why are we suddenly resurrecting so many old threads?

Seriously. We do we so rabidly defend these imaginary lines? Why do we insist that people remain separated from one another based on arbitrary scribblings on a map? Why are some people, by function of where they happen to be born, able to cross borders with little difficulty, while for others, it is nearly an impossibility? Borders don't really seem to exist for the globetrotting elite of the West, but for the vast majority of the world, these intangible boundaries are as limiting as real walls.

You would think, in this age of global capitalism, where there is a pressing desire for open borders in terms of the production and distribution of goods, that we would also want to fling open the barriers to human movement. Are people really afraid that the world's poor will flock to one 'rich' nation, and drag it down into poverty? Don't your theories of supply and demand apply to human movement too? Wouldn't things at one point even out?

Let's make this world truly borderless...not just for goods and services...but for people too.

Quite basically...

MY LAND BITCH! GTFO!

Quite basically...

MY LAND BITCH! GTFO!
Who keeps gravedigging my threads like this!!??

And Colodia...that would be MY land :eek: You're welcome to stay if you wish.

You know Sinuhue, what I think Markreich was trying to get at with the "name one..." is that he wanted us to find a wealthy and developed capitalist democracy that was poor and ridden with violence.

If I could manage that I think for my next trick I would find a horse that was, in fact, a dog.


Thanks. :)

The irony is lost... :p