Hacker News Reader

Comment by IG_Semmelweiss | Hacker News Reader

Those lines are not imaginary per se. It means that the people living within those imaginary lines have come together with similar ideals and unity, arrived by many years of co-operation, to bestow certain rights and privileges to their fellow neighbors. Those rights were paid in blood, sweat and tears.

The reason people organized as tribes matters. Its part of our very nature. And those tribes also respected imaginary lines. Even animals respect some imaginary lines. Eventually, some may be accepted in the tribe. But no one would just walk in to the tribe. Its not how nature works.

View on HN

Hardly. The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it. They are expressions of power and very little else, and mostly not the power of the people. The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions of the value of human beings, not citizens. You may be right that there is some kind of fundamental tribal mentality in human beings, but that doesn't mean that enshrining that reality in law or even nurturing it is morally right. The idea that borders benefit the common person better than, for example, a system which genuinely respected the dignity and right of human beings regardless of their geographical coincidences, is bullshit.

>>> The lines are basically drawn by aristocrats of one kind or another and the rest of us have to deal with it I agree. So ? Tribes had the same interactions. Nothing's changed. We are still humans.

>>> The rights paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, as you say, were wrenched from the hands of the kinds of people

So by that assertion , wherever you live, you should vacate right now. Because if you take that line of thinking to its conclusion, it means that there are no property rights, and therefore, no security at all. And, there's the conundrum that the entire world disagrees with you, and has borders which they protect to varying degrees.

>>> (aristocrates) who draw borders and consist entirely of statements that are borderless assertions

The aristocrats are actually elected representatives. Its nice to paint them with the aristocrat brush, hey ill even join you there because i despise them too, but taking that tack doesn't change the fact that those are still elected representatives. And they made those assertions in our behalf. On behalf of free people.

>>> of the value of human beings, not citizens I don't know what that means. If you are arguing for inalienable rights, I agree there. But inalienable rights do not include the right to force a group of humans to carry the weight of a stranger. That's aggression over a human's inalienable rights.

>>> that doesn't mean that enshrining that reality in law or even nurturing it is morally right. It is morally right because you have the right to protect yourself and your kin. That's what borders are. Arguing otherwise goes against nature and against what's right. Once you leave your comfortable home to write on HN and instead house some malnourished somalians, maybe we will start paying attention to you.

All you advocate is charity, by usurping your tribe's rights. That is an act of aggression, and i'm calling you out on it. That's what politicians do. Maybe do something different from them, and lead by example ? (do as i say, not as i do, seems a fitting descripting here)

There are not property rights and there is no security except the security that human beings create for themselves and, ultimately, one another. "Property rights" do not descend from the platonic realm to protect you if someone invades your home. You may protect yourself or your neighbors may protect you or, as is more generally the case, I believe, a general sense of bonhomie shared by human beings everywhere, does most of the protecting. But the rights are a mere convention cooked up by people, for people, and even then they are more a symbolic act against the barbarism of the sorts of sociopaths who show up with soldiers and decide they are the kings.

It's true that now those kinds of people are often directed towards politics and become the elected officials which you assert justify the borders, but in fact most of the borders we live with were never drawn with any consent of the people living there. The vast majority of borders are pure objects of fiat power (especially the border over which the immigration you have a chip on your shoulder about, which was quite literally determined via war).

Herein I'm not advocating charity, which is, nevertheless, a fundamental human virtue. I am advocating that human beings, if they have any rights or dignity at all, have those rights and dignities by virtue of their humanity and not by virtue of where their parents happened to be when they were born. Communities of humans shouldn't tolerate freeloaders, but the people coming across the border are by and large the exact opposite: people willing to work harder for less than many people living here. If you are really so concerned with social parasites, let me suggest you look to institutions like health insurance companies, landlords, etc.

Your dream will evaporate when the newcomers self organize and disenfranchise you. This foolishness and lack of critical thinking will be ultimately resolved by nature itself.

What dream do you think I have?

The biggest flaw on your argument is that you are choosing to ignore that we are talking is a complex system that involves time in a grand scale. Like most things in nature.

You can't understand the dynamics of a colony by observing 1 ant. Similarly, you can't understand borders by focusing on who or when they were drawn.

Borders are the equilibrium point of the strength and culture of a particular tribe over a very long period of time developed thru their communal effort. Borders will move or disappear when a tribe gets too strong or weak. Its a process that has always taken place in nature at all levels, for all time.

You can choose to look at the ant, and the ant may appeal feckless and it has a very short lifespan.

You are just stuck in the wrong domain. We are talking about natural processes. You seem to insist to suggest this is a different domain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com