Sanctuary cities and Marijuana
Our society is currently thrashing its way through many complicated subjects. In the end though, a lot of what these discussions boil down to is local versus central control. Organization from the bottom up versus organization from the top down.
The slow cracking up of central control (and the normal response of any system to losing power, which is to angrily try to re-establish power by armed force) is visible with respect to individual cities claiming sanctuary status and individual states defying the federal government with respect to controlled substances. Both represent defiance of central control (which is ironic, as many of the people who support this defiance of central control are simultaneously arguing for more central control over societal issues like equality, education, and employment. As I said -- it's clearly a complicated issue.)
So the question I have is, should we treat these the same way? If central control is bad, then should we encourage our border to disintegrate by defying central control over illegal immigrants? (I'm not going to follow the PC "undocumented" nonsense -- someone who breaks the law and takes my car is not an "undocumented owner" -- even if I want to applaud the initiative of illegal immigrants and think they deserve help, which I do, it is not healthy to change the meaning of words to try to cheat the rules. That just destroys our whole societal construct.) If central control is bad, should we cease to treat people like slaves and actually allow them control over what they do or what they put in their own bodies?
And how does this interact with the idea of majority rule, the idea of democracy? What if the majority want to control substances and control immigration -- does that make it right?
What do you think Steemians? Are these the same? Or different?
It's crazy, I was just having this thought the other day....why do we need borders in an open market society? The terrorist that are threats as well as the governments that fight them are the enemies of the people.
If there was no central government and everyone across the globe was free to move as they please and everyone is taught self defense and use of a few lethal weapons then who would ever venture to organize and try to conquer something that can't be conquered. Without Religious and political indoctrination I don't see people ever organizing to try to control or cause harm to any group of people.
The government and crime organizations are no different when it comes to leeching off the back of the people.
So, here's the big question -- how does this work if you introduce nation state currencies? Can you have open borders and nation state currencies? How about if you add social services -- can you have open borders and not go bankrupt if you offer social services paid for by taxpayers?
Added -- I agree that organized crime functions just like governments -- good thought!
Im more against federal government and dont think their should be a national currency. I think who ever has the means to create a currency of genuine value based on something. For instance if a bank or group of people ventured to take their gold and have it mixed with hemp paper like a gold foil and give it out as a currency in exchange for gold bars or some other commodity. Eventually the group of individuals will aquire their wealth in other materials and will then be forced to exchange for more gold to produce more currency which keeps i believe a constant change of wealth, back and forth. So multiple currencies by whoever can accumulate the meams to create some of value whether fiat or crypto.
State and cities should handle welfare. Its easier to influence people within a city than am entire nation. If no one has borders no one needs armies for war. Everyone has something to offer whether its material or knowledge or labor
Agree that an organic currency, a currency that rises up and earns users because it fulfills the qualities of money, that people use because they want to rather than because they are told to, is the only stable currency.
So do you think a central government will ever give up its right to impose a currency that they can print on the people?
I think a lot about national borders and what they mean. I always come to the conclusion "If we don't have borders then what is the point of having a nation state?". One thing is for sure, these borders are here with us and they need to be respected. I live in a country where our border control is non-existent and we are now sitting with some serious problems.
So for you, borders should be handled by central control, but how about substance use? Is that up to the individual?