RE: Walls Don't Work: AKA A World Without Walls
Yes there is. I do not recognize YOUR authority to decide what analogy exists or does not exist. There may be analogies you personally do not like or that don't fit with your own mind. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It simply means YOU don't agree with it or to YOU it does not exist.
Pretty much everyone I've ever encountered or seen has things that THEY believe that others necessarily do not.
Is the analogy exact? No.
Yet it is there and it does exist. Unless you choose to play the cognitive dissonance game and toss it aside as it doesn't fit with the way you would like to see the world. It is there. If you actually try to see it. Yet expecting it to be exact. Analogies are NEVER exact.
Now I'll show you how the analogy DOES apply using your image.
YOURS pointing at a house. Do you think I am the only person living in that house? Currently I have anywhere from 8 to 10 people living in my house. We are not all the same person. We don't agree with each other on numerous things. Yet we share a common property, common goals, we coexist together, and we support each other.
That is what a NATION is supposed to do. From that perspective the walls of a house and the walls of a nation is a very good analogy.
It is easy to over simplify a thought to try to discard it as moot or inaccurate. That doesn't mean it is. Sometimes you have to look a little bit beyond your own comfort zone. You also have to be willing to be wrong, and encounter new thoughts. If you happen to be like so many people (myself in the past as well) that is so arrogant that they think they've gotten it figured out then this can be challenging. You'll find yourself in attack anything that challenges your current world view and things WILL occasionally make it through but not without a huge fight, or huge struggle... or more often the passage of time as the seeds of things discounted take root and later on your mind changes, but there is no memory of the seeds themselves. This happens to all of us. Myself included. I change my mind frequently and the person I argue with the most is myself.
IF you cannot change your mind you cannot learn. Learning requires one of two situations. 1) Being wrong and thus learning from it, or 2) Being ignorant and learning about something you didn't know about. With these things in mind what interest is it of someone truly wanting to learn to lash out and attack without seriously considering?
Also in your case. I am not saying a great number of things because I've read your work. I know you from what pieces I've seen of your writing. I like you. I actually understand what narrative you are defending by this response. I get it. It is a narrative I too would like to defend... yet it is a narrative that doesn't currently work with human nature. So pretending it does is being naive. I will tell you what point I think you are coming from so you will have a chance to correct me if I am wrong.
My ideal world would currently be anarcho-capitalist. Sometimes we call this voluntarist. If I remember correctly this is something likely true for you as well. This is the narrative I see you coming from.
The difference. I know that we couldn't flip the switch and just be anarcho-capitalist today. Mainly because of the human element. How people are educated. What cultures they are indoctrinated with.
For me anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism is my long term goal. I don't expect it to exist in my lifetime on a large scale. Possibly for several generations.
It would require a few things that currently do not exist for it to work.
It would require a population well educated in critical thinking and its application to interacting with people of different ideas and persuasions. This is required to enable people who disagree to find ways to communicate and still coexist. Without it we end up with the I AM RIGHT and YOU ARE WRONG world and it inevitably leads to conflict, and oppression. Such thing would tear any voluntarist society to pieces as it scaled up. Kind of like communism only working in small communes and such, it won't scale. Yet at least unlike communism it doesn't require conformity of mind. IT simply requires a way for people to not be blinded by appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, appeals to emotion, etc. Our education on a global level has been going the opposite direction with regards to critical thinking. I mean we had Joe Biden say "Truth over facts" recently and many people applaud that. Many people think their feelings are facts and shape the truth for everyone. This would need to be fixed.
We would need a way to RESET the idea of property and provide a voluntary way for people to be involved with property. There are a lot of ideas about this. I am sure they will have their own set of problems that won't appear until they are implemented.
We live in a world where people/groups/nations/gangs do have power that essentially enslaves other portions of the population. We can't go poof and pretend they don't exist.
So while I share the idea of a voluntarist goal. I believe we need stepping stones to get there.
We need a house, a neighborhood, a city, and possibly a nation at the moment from which we can stand and build that path.
It is no different than if I had no walls or door yet I had things that the CURRENT people in the world envy or want. I'd soon have none of that and possibly be dead.
So we can dream. We should dream. Yet we also must not be blind to reality in planning on making a dream a reality.
The world is not in a place that would work without walls.
Now if I was wrong about you and you are perhaps Anarcho-Communist or Anarcho-syndicalist leaning like the so-called Antifa then I could see you attacking this narrative I am pushing for completely different reasons.
Afterall the Marxist playbook is to collapse systems, cause chaos and replace them with Marxism which ends up being the ultimate form of monopoly and ends up being nothing more than an elite oligarchy with the power to force conformity, compliance, etc from an enslaved population. They are lured there by emotions, and feelings.
My argument does not rely on my authority, it relies on the application of reason to political emotionalism. As the one making the positive claim that national borders are somehow an extension of property rights and ownership boundaries, you are the one who bears the burden of proof. You used a lot of words to convey little meaning.
Governments do not represent anyone outside the political class despite their propaganda about democracy and representation. What is the source of government's authority to dictate who may travel where and trade what? Remember, they don't represent us, so that argument is shot down. None of us have delegated any authority to them. Even if democracy worked as advertised, and we did have a representative republic, none of us can delegate any authority we do not have in the first place anyway. As noted in the meme above, I have no authority over my next door neighbor's property, so how can I delegate such authority to the government? That is usurpation.
Crime is indeed a problem, but governments are in fact the biggest and most violent criminal enterprises known to mankind. They do not protect us from being violated any more than a mafia tries to keep out competition in their racketeering district.
National borders exist only to define the territorial monopolies in violence held by governments. They do not represent society, communities, or any other organic social structure. Near where I live, there is a town that straddles a state border. On one side of the street, you can legally conceal a pistol without any license or permit. On the other side of the street, you can legally roll and smoke a marijuana cigarette. Crossing the street magically turns either person into a "criminal" by legislative fiat. This is absurd. National borders are just an extension of this absurdity.
Appealing to the status quo as "that's just the way it is" is a cop out. The argument that we need an educated populace before freedom can be permitted is not an argument with any merit, either.