You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What comes first? Open borders vs. ending the welfare state
I like hard borders. But you know every community should decide for themselves how they handle integration. Everybody should be able to find a new home, but that does not mean there is nothing expected from them when they join a new community.
Imo "closed borders" and "open borders" are extremes that were never realized. Even in the time of the iron curtain there were people legally migrating and our open borders don't mean that there is no paperwork that I at least have to take of when I move to another EU country. It reminds me of the "free market" in America even though most anarchists would claim that there has never been such a thing like a truly free market in modern America.
I agree with you. In the case of the EU, the borders have just been expanded. So once you're in, you can move wherever you want within the Schengen area, but it's kinda hard to enter at first.
yeah and it's not like there is no border patrol when you come back from the netherlands ;).
I feel like closed borders always sounds like "build a wall", "nobody in, nobody out" and that is definitely not what I want. I want to get rid of todays borders that are mostly the remains of empires, but that does not mean I dont want borders in general. You know your own room in your house is the smallest "border" you have. And we all want to have this actual "safe space" where we can just close the door and be alone or only with selected people, if we so desire.
In the end I want mostly cities and families to be the government of the people, there just have to be a few global/widereaching contracts so the cities and communities can better interact with each other.
More and more people realize that you can't govern the day to day life of millions and billions of people from a central entity. There definitely is something like a anti-globalist movement and that is a good thing :)
Yeah. absolutely. There is nothing wrong with hierarchy if the subjects consent to it. That's not the case with today's governments though. A very good initiative I recently read about is the idea of Free Private Cities. Imagine a city where you voluntarily adhere to the rules without a central body enforcing random rules they choose to implement without having to ask everyone to agree with them first :D
Nope, anarchy doesn't mean a lack of hierarchy. Anarchy is order ;-)
Well I think anarchy often comes down to the interpretation of the word authority.
I actually wrote a German article about why I hate Latin words and how their common usage in English is actually hurting the intellectual debate.
Sure we Germans have the word "Autorität" as well and the exact translate meaning is "always right/corrrect" if I remember correctly.
A real German word for the phenomenon would be leadership, but the word "Führer" somehow got a bad rep xD. A leader is nothing without followers. Ron Paul would be a great example for a leader and I think he is often annoyed that nobody within the libertarian community is having a more controversial debate with him, many see him as an authority and not just a leader.
Wait are you just putting words into my mouth or did you reply to the wrong person? :D
Haha those are not your words!! Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant is that a lot of people say that ;-)
I actually understood it that way at first, but then I was like wait, maybe he is just talking about something very similar with another person and got us mixed up :D.
Free Private Cities sounds a little like "owned by a private person" but apart from that (leftist) biased association it is pretty much exactly what I am advocating for. In a city or district your voice actually matters, so this should be the main decision making entity or maybe even a little smaller, but cities are a very good start, imo.
I agree that decentralization is a very good way to move power back to the individual, but I also think that individual rights aren't subject to a public vote of some sort. Living in a (small) society is very often necessary, but that doesn't mean that people have to listen to decision makers if they haven't agreed to do so.
Private cities will turn off a lot of people because of the name, but it's nothing more than a person owning a big plot of land and letting people inhabit it according to his/her rule. It's that person's property after all.
Wait... then i am actually completely against it. Cities are century old mammuths that nobody should own.