6 ms·

The USA is a single country with a federal government, so your suggestion there makes no sense. The Schengen zone is basically the same as the EU, which isn't

The USA is a single country with a federal government, so your suggestion there makes no sense. The Schengen zone is basically the same as the EU, which isn't a single government, but it's acting a lot like one in many ways. Either way, what you seem to be advocating is a single global government. There's no way to have no borders without having a single government controlling everything.

mrtksn 3y ago
Schengen is not the same as EU, it’s a borders free zone. Anyway, what does it mean global government? Is WTO or UN a global government? Why do you need this “global government” to let people travel around? Don’t forget that travel restrictions on people is a very new phenomenon, not too long ago people were able to travel wherever they wanted without visa or passport or anything like that. Why do you think that we should keep those restrictions?
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >Is WTO or UN a global government? No, because they have no ability enforce any policy. >Why do you need this “global government” to let people travel around? You said you don't want borders. That's different than just letting people travel freely. National borders entail much more than freedom of travel. >not too long ago people were able to travel wherever they wanted without visa or passport Yeah, because it was really difficult to travel anywhere except maybe between neighboring countries. When travel became cheap and easy and countless millions of people starting doing it, they made more restrictions because some people were taking advantage of it. >Why do you think that we should keep those restrictions? Do you want criminals from other countries coming to your country? In those wonderful olden days you speak of, that's what happened: people committed terrible crimes, and then evaded capture and fled to other places where no one knew who they were or what they did. Understandably, people don't really want that any more. We also have the issue of economic migrants. No country really wants to be inundated with millions of poor people from some other country; in the era of modern social services, countries don't have the resources to provide for them. In those olden days, when people moved to a new country, they either figured out how to make a living, or they starved to death, or maybe were exiled or killed if the people there didn't like them for some reason.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    > You said you don't want borders. Yeah, I think I clarified that a few messages ago. I'm not against administrative borders, cities have borders too and I'm completely fine with it - governments can claim control over regions and that's fine. Feel free to load all kind of meanings to borders as long as you don't guard them with people that control who can pass and who can't based on bureaucratic paperwork. And for the "bad people will come" claim, I think you are too trusting for the abilities of your visa department of detecting bad people. And for the economic migrants, yep that happens all the time and it's very normal. Have you heard of H-2B visa? It's based on this ridiculous idea that the government employees can choose the workers better than the companies that want to employ them. It's so bezire. There's this strange idea that companies will employ unskilled people if you let foreigners come. Can you imagine Apple employing an Afghani shepherd as a product designer because didn't have to go through the immigration procedures and vetted by the government first? Completely ridiculous. No one is asking you to provide people with free money or anything, just let anyone travel anywhere and do anything legal. Don't worry, you don't waste resources when someone they come over and find a work. On the contrary, the more people working the more wealthy the society is going to be. If you look closely, the people who cause disturbance are those who are rich enough to travel anywhere and simply consume the resources there without working. Cities like London are suffering from the super rich who just buy properties and consume resources there. The numbers can go up, but the life quality of the natives go down as those who have no involvement in the society start to dominate the economy and compete for the resources with their wast fortunes. The main cause for the non-working rich causing problems is again the borders. Money means dept, when someone has $1M, it means the society owns him that much worth of services and if that person made that money somewhere else normally when he spends his money the natural flow will quickly reach equilibrium as services and resources will travel to the money. However, when you artificially restrict flow of people and resources without restricting the flow of money you end up with people inflating the demand when restricting the supply causing huge issues to the local people because they will have to compete for resources and provide services tho those who accumulated money somewhere with restricted flow. And as for the criminals? Deal with them regardless of their paperwork, it doesn't matter if someone is French, British or Pakistani, this should't be relevant.
  - ComposedPattern 3y ago
- naveen99 3y ago
  You don’t need international borders for travel restrictions, see China.
petre 3y ago
It's not the same as the EU. It's a separate treary. Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, Ireland are not part of the Schengen Area.
keepamovin 3y ago
I think you can have borders (to simplify your administrative woes / concerns), but also freedom of movement and work for people. That's probably what GP means. This seems a way where you can have localized governments and distinct legal jurisdictions, without "PAPERS PLEAZE!" for people exercising their right to vote with their feet. In effect, borders plus freedom is a way to get a more ideal world without necessitating a global government. That it may require or be improved by a bit more global cooperation and coordination among nevertheless distinct jurisdictions is a not a bad thing tho. Tho maybe I haven't thought this through. What do you think the problems are with this permeable borders approach are?

mrtksn 3y ago

Schengen is not the same as EU, it’s a borders free zone. Anyway, what does it mean global government? Is WTO or UN a global government? Why do you need this “global government” to let people travel around? Don’t forget that travel restrictions on people is a very new phenomenon, not too long ago people were able to travel wherever they wanted without visa or passport or anything like that. Why do you think that we should keep those restrictions?

midoridensha 3y ago
>Is WTO or UN a global government? No, because they have no ability enforce any policy. >Why do you need this “global government” to let people travel around? You said you don't want borders. That's different than just letting people travel freely. National borders entail much more than freedom of travel. >not too long ago people were able to travel wherever they wanted without visa or passport Yeah, because it was really difficult to travel anywhere except maybe between neighboring countries. When travel became cheap and easy and countless millions of people starting doing it, they made more restrictions because some people were taking advantage of it. >Why do you think that we should keep those restrictions? Do you want criminals from other countries coming to your country? In those wonderful olden days you speak of, that's what happened: people committed terrible crimes, and then evaded capture and fled to other places where no one knew who they were or what they did. Understandably, people don't really want that any more. We also have the issue of economic migrants. No country really wants to be inundated with millions of poor people from some other country; in the era of modern social services, countries don't have the resources to provide for them. In those olden days, when people moved to a new country, they either figured out how to make a living, or they starved to death, or maybe were exiled or killed if the people there didn't like them for some reason.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  > You said you don't want borders. Yeah, I think I clarified that a few messages ago. I'm not against administrative borders, cities have borders too and I'm completely fine with it - governments can claim control over regions and that's fine. Feel free to load all kind of meanings to borders as long as you don't guard them with people that control who can pass and who can't based on bureaucratic paperwork. And for the "bad people will come" claim, I think you are too trusting for the abilities of your visa department of detecting bad people. And for the economic migrants, yep that happens all the time and it's very normal. Have you heard of H-2B visa? It's based on this ridiculous idea that the government employees can choose the workers better than the companies that want to employ them. It's so bezire. There's this strange idea that companies will employ unskilled people if you let foreigners come. Can you imagine Apple employing an Afghani shepherd as a product designer because didn't have to go through the immigration procedures and vetted by the government first? Completely ridiculous. No one is asking you to provide people with free money or anything, just let anyone travel anywhere and do anything legal. Don't worry, you don't waste resources when someone they come over and find a work. On the contrary, the more people working the more wealthy the society is going to be. If you look closely, the people who cause disturbance are those who are rich enough to travel anywhere and simply consume the resources there without working. Cities like London are suffering from the super rich who just buy properties and consume resources there. The numbers can go up, but the life quality of the natives go down as those who have no involvement in the society start to dominate the economy and compete for the resources with their wast fortunes. The main cause for the non-working rich causing problems is again the borders. Money means dept, when someone has $1M, it means the society owns him that much worth of services and if that person made that money somewhere else normally when he spends his money the natural flow will quickly reach equilibrium as services and resources will travel to the money. However, when you artificially restrict flow of people and resources without restricting the flow of money you end up with people inflating the demand when restricting the supply causing huge issues to the local people because they will have to compete for resources and provide services tho those who accumulated money somewhere with restricted flow. And as for the criminals? Deal with them regardless of their paperwork, it doesn't matter if someone is French, British or Pakistani, this should't be relevant.
- ComposedPattern 3y ago
naveen99 3y ago
You don’t need international borders for travel restrictions, see China.

petre 3y ago

It's not the same as the EU. It's a separate treary. Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, Ireland are not part of the Schengen Area.

keepamovin 3y ago

I think you can have borders (to simplify your administrative woes / concerns), but also freedom of movement and work for people. That's probably what GP means. This seems a way where you can have localized governments and distinct legal jurisdictions, without "PAPERS PLEAZE!" for people exercising their right to vote with their feet. In effect, borders plus freedom is a way to get a more ideal world without necessitating a global government. That it may require or be improved by a bit more global cooperation and coordination among nevertheless distinct jurisdictions is a not a bad thing tho. Tho maybe I haven't thought this through. What do you think the problems are with this permeable borders approach are?