I have a feeling if she was a Canadian citizen, this would have been a slap on the wrist, and she would've been let back into Canada within hours, if not immediately.
But it's not an imaginary line, it's a line that two democratic countries agreed to create to separate them. She inadvertently crossed one of the most important lines that exists, a line that demarcates two sovereign countries that hold wildly different world views. Until such a stateless utopia manifests itself we still need these lines.
I agree on the two week detention being absurd. It should have taken less than a few hours to sort things out.
Sorry, but I can't help but read that as "it's not an imaginary line, it's an imaginary line".
She inadvertently crossed one of the most important lines that exists, a line that demarcates two sovereign countries
A case can be made that "sovereign countries" are imaginary constructs that should be abolished, along with their imaginary lines of demarcation.
I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but what I'm saying is that elevating that line to some concrete status is rooted in a worldview which has no objective reality. We can abolish borders, we just need to come together and muster up the will to do it. Which means, in part, finding solutions to all the problems the statists will use as arguments for preserving their lines.
An exceedingly weak case can be made. It makes for a fun thought experiment but it falls apart really quickly.
Say someone did manage to abolish all the states, why would that not just be the conqueror establishing a new global state? How would you enforce the rule no states allowed? Who would enforce it? If there was no global state to enforce the rule, what stops someone like me from organizing a state and easily conquering the stateless?
>...elevating that line to some concrete status is rooted in a worldview which has no objective reality
I'm curious what worldview you think is rooted in objective reality? To me a world where everyone just gets along and lives in cooperative communes is lacking a foundation in reality.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the state. I do however view it as a necessary evil. Remember, ultimately the state is still just people. Any gripe you have with the state is just a gripe against people with power. Saying that nobody should hold power is a cop out.
The hard part of organizing the human race is trying to determine who should organize us. To that end it seems like a democratic state is more desirable than a hopelessly disorganized commune.
We can abolish borders, but that doesn't seem like a future rooted in reality. Who governs who? Sounds like you want everyone to live under one "nation"...like are you really advocating for world peace?
What laws are you subject to? What protections do you have? These are all dependent on which side of the border you land, therefore you have to set where one side ends and where another begins.
It's a beach. Presumably the part she jogged along is underwater part of the time due to tides and that is why there is no marker.
You seem to be stuck on the label "imaginary" in ways that are unrelated to the article at hand.
The ridiculous treatment of the individual in the situation is something we should come down hard on that section of the government. (They should be facing an inquiry about that)
Why do you say so? There's nothing inherently "good" or "just" about nation states. The only nominal support I can find for such an idea is rooted in applying something like Dunbar's Number[1]. But arguably appealing to that is committing a variation of the naturalistic fallacy[2].
The ridiculous treatment of the individual in the situation is something we should come down hard on that section of the government. (They should be facing an inquiry about that)
But who's going to conduct such an inquiry? The government? Oh, wait. It's the old "who watches the watchers?" problem. Me, I don't trust the government to provide oversight of itself. For the same reason I don't trust police to police themselves when it comes to excessive force cases, etc.
Without borders or nations, you're suggesting there will be a universal law. Who's law do you want? Do you want to be forced to wear head coverings, do you want internet censorship? Do you want to have kickbacks from the cartel? Having different nations allows you to understand where there are tradeoffs.
Can you back up that assertion?
The border between the US and Mexico exists because the US and Mexico have different laws (including taxation and benefits). The border is where the US and Mexico have negotiated that one's rules stop holding and the other's rules start holding.
For taxes and things, sure. For oppression of peoples? Probably. To keep undesirable countries citizens out? Sure. To have an excuse not to care about what goes on in other countries? Most definitely.
Travel and freedom of movement and work and choice in where you wind up living? Not really.
edit: if there's some way that we can pick both please feel free to tell everyone.
Oh?