1233
submitted 11 months ago by Grayox@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago

The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world's treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We literally didn't have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.

The human os isn't ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 5 points 11 months ago

Humans have built societies with rules for forever.

And banish people outside their society.

I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.

[-] NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

A light form was tribalism. If you didn't go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.

We now don't have places to banish people to. That's why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that's the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.

It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren't we anymore?

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 1 points 11 months ago

We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.

You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.

But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.

Hardly utopia.

[-] NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago

Yeah, and that is not equivalent to modern borders.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 0 points 11 months ago

In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be "the zone of control of a government" and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.

The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago

There is a massive difference if you can practically establish who is allowed into and out of a country

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So is the argument against technology that allows us to know who is who and records of who is a citizen of places?

Like, they used to record that stuff too… it was just much harder?

They would collect taxes and keep records?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They couldn't effectively police borders, so they didn't. Technology and population density influences the way the state works and whether they could do borders as they existed in the 20th century and exist in the 21st century.

The argument isn't against technology, it is saying borders as they are understood here are a relatively recent technology relying on other technologies

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 11 months ago

But that’s the way borders were understood then too… it was just harder to determine who was who?

They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago

They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?

That is a complete anachronism, unless you actually were an invader. Have you actually researched this or are you just taking your assumptions and trying to apply them to history?

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Go read some Greek history on the city states and ostracism, as well as the fact that it only worked because they had slaves and subjugated women?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago

Exile as punishment for a crime and keeping slaves is distinct from having a border with border controls.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 11 months ago

Ostracism only required a vote, no crime, and no defense was allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

The penalty for returning was death.

Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.

Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago

Literally whether you can control human migration between territories.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 11 months ago

But if you can throw people out, and kill them when they come back why is it that different?

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Denying entry to random people is different than telling someone to leave?

Imagine the difference between a bar with a bouncer at the door and a bar without, and then apply that principle at a much larger scale.

[-] stevehobbes@lemy.lol 2 points 11 months ago

Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.

There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago

But it makes it much harder to control who is in a space, which means in practice there are additional liberties.

this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
1233 points (96.0% liked)

Memes

45895 readers
1203 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS