The Case for Getting Rid of Borders Completely

There is a case for open borders, in a perfect world. On the other hand, the destination country does not get any equity in the source country, as deferment. Immigrants take up resources (housing, educational, etc.) and send money out (remittances).

Let's say you're running a great country with a great economy, Singapore. And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million people stream in, maybe ten. How good is Singapore going to be as a destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure, culture, economy etc? Do they get dividends on the source country which squandered its opportunities (say Indonesia with vast natural resources).

And what's the incentive for the people/gov't in the other countries to shape up? Remember, at the turn of the 20th century[1], lots of poor countries were on par with now developed nations and many developed and rich nations were backwaters (Norway, Sweden) and many powerhouses were very agricultural (the US, Japan, China, Russia) and kind of backward.

I think one could just as well make a case for, wait for it, the great bogey-concept, imperialism.

Why not have Singapore control Indonesia, bring in expertise, a culture of success, government and eradicate corruption gov't malfeasance and bring prosperity to Indonesia, for example?

I mean, what's the difference between Indonesians going to Singapore to become like Singaporeans and adopt some of their culture, versus Singapore having dominion over Indonesia and instilling some of their culture, success, economic prowess, etch, thus becoming a bit Singaporean?

[1]http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-pr...

graphs show disparity in the 2 - 3x in the early 20th cent.

Most folks do not know the history of the sovereign state, but the version that we have today is a descendent of the Westphalian State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty). Even fewer people know why it came about in this form, yet the reason it came about may be quite important in this discussion.

After the Thirty Years and Eighty Years Wars came the Westphalian Peace of 1648 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia). A primary objective of the Peace was to recognize sovereignty because during the war and in the time leading up to it integrated economies were wracked by shocks and corruption.

Some argue, and I am mindful that, the only proven bulwark against such shocks and corruption may be sovereignty of the sort that the Westphalian Peace created.

The notion of sovereignty has stood the test of time – it seems reasonably compatible with how collectives of humans perceive and react with their world – but through the modern globalization of capital we may be re-learning a 360 year old lesson.

So while the globalization of human labour has yet to catch up to freedom of international capital flows – a failure that creates tremendous unfairness, and this analysis is admittedly brief and glossy, it is worth keeping in mind that we may be unlocking the same doors that created unfathomable multi-generational wars now long forgotten.

Strong borders came with the welfare state to avoid a tragedy of the commons.

Remove various fundamental benefits such as public school, medical care, welfare, transit, subsidized X and the millions of other benefits created in the past 120 years and open borders are not as big of a deal anymore. You just need to hop on a boat and arrive at ellis island, like the ancestors of many americans today.

There are also parallels with city zoning laws. Go buy a house and find out how many restrictions and regulations there are on the parcel of land that you have purchased. And also see how much resistance you will get from the local politically active populace if you dare try to change things. Such as creating density. NIMBYism almost seems like a instinctual human reflex.

In other places where there isn't a welfare state and so on, it's usually straight up racism and ethnic nationalism.

Even if you don't get open borders, the fact that we have all these treaties which force free flow of capital across but do nothing to allow easier flow of labor across borders is a huge problem. It allows nations with crappy social and political systems to undermine labor welfare and protection policies in better political systems without facing repercussions for it. Unsurprisingly, the asymmetric flows of capital and labor forced by trade agreements play right into the hands of benefitting capital owners across the world at the expense of ordinary workers.

I don't believe completely open borders are necessary or even possible, but every trade agreement that forces free flow of capital (and prevents duties on imports, etc) needs to come with equivalent labor protections as well (massively increased flow of people across borders, and not in a "you're a second class resident who can be deported at your employer's whim" way, or alternatively, removing import duties only as long as laborer a on both sides of the border receive equal labor protections of the law. So if country A offers a minimum wage, it is allowed to impose duties as long as the wages being offered to the workers in country B is less than the cost of living adjusted equivalent salary in that country. )

I have been arguing this for years - in a 10% tongue-in-cheek kind of way - and it's strange to see it written down in an article.

The stock response tends to be that in an ideal world it would be great, but it's not practical. Of course, perfectly decent, well-meaning and good-hearted white people sat around dinner tables during apartheid and slavery and said exactly the same thing. History has proven them wrong, and in fact if we imagine popular support for uncontrolled global immigration, it's rather easy to conceive a practical implementation - quotas gradually increased, borders lowered - it could be achieved in a controlled way.

I also hear the 'why should we?' response. Indonesia has squandered its natural resources - aka it's their own fault they're poor. But none of us would stand in front of a classful of Indonesian schoolchildren and say this. Being born in a rich western country is a colossal slice of luck, not a personal achievement. The fact is that thinking of people in terms of nations tends to dehumanise them, and that's one of the reasons why greater migration and a blurring of borders would be a good thing.

The economic arguments around immigration have raged in the press here in the UK for the last few years. Here at least the general academic consensus has been that it's a net plus, and that the additional burden on state benefits is outweighed by the economic benefits of a well-motivated and grateful migrant workforce. The risk to any benefits system is not more people per se, but that it will be abused - ie the development of a benefits culture, where people choose not to work because the safety net will support them. It's up to us to decide whether this attitude is more likely in the indigenous population or with recent economic migrants.

The real barrier to adoption is lack of popular support, and I accept that few people are going to agree with me on this issue. But then again, there's this: http://goo.gl/95g5kQ

Interesting. I don't know enough about the economics to comment, but I will say that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and there is a path to a borderless world, which involves something like introducing a process whereby another nation can apply to become another state of the USA. Call it state-level immigration.

So, the USA has serious issues, but it still does the really important things well which is a fair vote, and the total freedom of speech and religion. With these two tools in tact, all the other tools can be recreated as needed, according to the times. A member state would get a probation period and then two senate members, some house reps, and a full vote in federal elections. Meanwhile, they'd have to adopt state-level law consistent with US federal law.

The devil is in the details, of course. But maybe if and when software eats the legal system, such a process might be more likely.

(Of course, I have to wonder what is up with Puerto Rico and so many other odd American territories in legal limbo).

I'm opposed to this on very basic grounds: freedom of expression, and the derived artifact of that, freedom of and from religion.

The economic case is somewhat compelling, but I'll set it aside for now, as that is an open and running political dialog playing out with trade agreements, treaties, etc...

Religion, in the US, is entirely optional. We don't have the concept of a "higher authority" codified in the law. We also permit nearly all expression, and in particular, that expression hostile to powerful interests and the government itself.

I often see and hear about things I find completely unacceptable in nations that have not gone there. Religious law, of various kinds, can justify nearly anything. Secular law is similar, but the debate can be meaningful and at least composed of things we can put into a courtroom and reason about.

"God says..." is irrational. We have absolutely nothing on record at all. Thomas Paine details this, and derives the basis for natural rights for us as peer beings in the world, as well as the concept of self-governance in "Rights of Man", and "Age of Reason" --The latter, saw him jailed for a number of years due to how angry Catholics got over that work.

On a basic level, we are all just beings here. If one takes that concept of fundamental equality, and mutual ignorance (no higher authority, no real definitive record or understanding of our origins), a lot of the social progress we've seen are obvious conclusions.

These things are very important to me. I want that basic realization and consideration just as much as I understand my peers here want it, and arguably we all need it too.

Borders do actually compartmentalize the world in ways that compare and contrast these ideas with other, older ideas, and it's very important that the increasingly connected people of the world see all of that play out, so that we may continue to see the social and human benefits expand.

Economics is another discussion, and it has just as much potential to do harm, oppress, etc... as the social issues do, but we are on the upside of social issues, and trading that for improved economics isn't something I feel good about.

I would say a lot of the discussion should rather be around the current structures and ideas we have formed, and which of them should be challenged. The idea of "countries", "states", "borders", "presidents", are all worth challenging, because not only do borders restrain our "freedom of movement", all of the above mentioned do that in some degree or another. That being said, I don't propose anarchism, just alternatives, something like Seasteading might just have some of the answers. Re-integrating successful seasteading ventures back onto landmass would be great, but certainly a more long term procedure. Change is difficult though, seasteading should not even be necessary for us to consider a different world, but leading by example will probably be what the world needs.

No thank you. I prefer strong borders. I like the secular culture of Europe as is. Anything that even potentially threatens it is direct attack on me.

>Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.

What do you do when a person refuses to identify themselves?

Do they still have this universal right of freedom to move?

Democracy is when the people can replace the government if they don't like the way it governs. What we're seeing in Europe and the US these days is that government is trying to replace the people because it doesn't like the way they vote. The unfettered-immigration and amnesty-for-illegals movements on both continents are direct attacks on democracy by governments that think they can get more money or power with a different set of voters. I don't know if anything quite like this has happened before... did the Greeks even have a word for it?