Jairaj DevadigaJul 5
stux⚡

Personally I always had issues with the concept of a "country" and "borders"

Like who are you to tell me where I can and cannot go on this planet..

Everyone should be free to travel where ever they want on this planet

Just because a huuman claimed land centuries ago decides how we live, it's pretty messed up if you ask me

Jul 5 at 12:24pmWeb
Show threadGondorJul 5

@stux
Agree 💯 It's rediciolous and stupid as flags and this Eddie Izzard-clip is funny:

https://youtu.be/UTduy7Qkvk8?feature=shared

🖖

Do you have a flag? - Eddie Izzard

YouTube
Show threadDanny Boling ☮️Jul 5

@grootinside

omg that was great 😂 thank you for sharing it

@stux

Show threadaprilfolliesJul 5
@IAmDannyBoling @grootinside @stux Suzy Eddie Izzard is an international treasure.
Show threadDanny Boling ☮️Jul 5

@aprilfollies

Absolutely.

@grootinside @stux

Show threadEl DuvelleJul 5
@stux I generally think this as well. But then I also think about the large variety of human societies that we have today, and how I would rather live in some (say, France) rather than others (say, the US, or those with no women's rights). If everyone could live everywhere without having to accept the laws of each country because there was no concept of country - wouldn't it end up being about "might makes right"?
Or maybe we can have no borders, no countries, and still somehow all agree to live in harmony, between each other and also between humans and nature? 🤔
Show threadstux⚡Jul 5

@elduvelle More like an United Nations 😉

We need a government but not in the current forms, more general

Perhaps current countries first as provinces

But at least no single rulers like kings, queens, presidents or dictators

Show threadGrymtJul 5
@stux @elduvelle The opposite. If the mighty can't lock out people, their might shrinks a lot, and it will be easier to set rights in stone, despite what the mighty want.
Show threadEl DuvelleJul 5
@grymt @stux
I guess this assumes that a lot more humans are nice than bad. I would like to believe this, and I think this is how humanity has survived originally - by helping each other, including the weakest members - but I am not fully convinced it is the case.
Or rather, even if there's more nice people overall, they seem to very easily follow dictators, strong-looking leaders that shout loudly but are just really selfish. How do we avoid that from happening in our utopic, border-free world?
Show threadstux⚡Jul 5
@elduvelle @grymt Hm.. all these replies are very interesting tough!
Show thread⁂iwein⁂Jul 5

@elduvelle if the structures are less rigid, and instead there was more mutual respect, we could have a lot more fun without resolving everything with force, I think ...

@stux

Show threadIrina Rokosz 🧩Jul 6
@elduvelle @stux That used to be the case when humans lived in tribes, just without a formal territory attached to them (i.e. each tribe had their own rules and traditions, and you had to follow them to fit in). Territory became a thing only when humans moved from hunter-gathering to agriculture - and then the fight for territory began (because the more land you had, the more humans you could feed, and hence the bigger the tribe).
Show threadTheir friend, SvavarJul 5

How do you approach in-group favoritism (a.k.a. in-group bias) and its effects when anyone can move anywhere?

Does that risk creating tensions and undermining the cohesion of the host country?

Even in places like the US and EU where people are free to move around, most stay in their country/state of origin.

When people do migrate en masse, they tend to stick together and form enclaves like Brits and Scandinavians do in Spain.

It's a lofty idea that I think is fraught with challenges.

@stux

Show threadMx VerdaJul 5
@svavar @stux I think this is an allistic-centric view of behaviours. With comparatively fewer autistic people, we might have less influence / represent less deviation from the [allistic / 'default'] norm. Still, learned behaviours are shortcuts, not inevitabilities.
Show threadTheir friend, SvavarJul 5

I'm probably somewhere on that spectrum myself although I don't have a formal diagnosis.

I'm not sure how an autistic person would behave in an in-group vs out-group situation. It can be highly fluid and contextual depending on how each group is defined.

There are examples in liberal democracies of tensions between the existing host culture and religious immigrants who oppose the host cultures openness and acceptance. This happens in the UK as well as other European countries.

@MxVerda @stux

Show threadMx VerdaJul 5

@svavar @stux I meant more that we'd (maybe?) group up with enclaves, but we may be more likely to go hermit, assimilate (self- and group-annihilate), or group up but along neurotype and/or habits rather than ethnicity and/or societal culture from born or raised country.

(Which gets complicated and wordy when your birth country and nationality may match, but where you grew up is different from where you live, and/or your expected or known ethnic origin, and/or probably more identity sginifiers.)

@IAmDannyBoling oh yeah, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk3oMhUFL8U

grim patron - everyone get in here!

YouTube
Show threadDanny Boling ☮️Jul 5

@svavar

This is all true. But challenges aren't cause enough to not try. Few things worth doing come without challenges.

@stux

Show threadTheir friend, SvavarJul 5

My point was to ask whether in-group bias is fundamental to human behaviour, and therefore inevitable?

I agree that these patterns are worth addressing and there are places in the world (mostly big cities) where different cultures can coexist and get along.

The challenge is that it takes deliberate effort to build cooperative societies where people feel like there is a shared in-group they belong to even if they were born elsewhere or hold otherwise different beliefs.

@IAmDannyBoling @stux

Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@stux with everyone free to go anywhere on this planet there would be total anarchy. If you have issues with the concept of country or border you would have issues also with the law that regulate the society enclosed inside those borders.
Show threadPeter BrettJul 5

@ranx “Everyone free to go anywhere on the planet” worked without issues for literally thousands of years. Why would it be different now?

Administrative boundaries and controlled borders are two different things. You can have one without the other.

@stux #PostNationalism

Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@krans @stux because for thousands of years there was no social welfare
Show threadstux⚡Jul 5

@ranx @krans But wasn't there even more anarachy?

Nowadays we "keep each other in check" with modern media to record etc

Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@stux @krans it depends on the "country". Here the rule of law is millenary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law
Roman law - Wikipedia

Show threadHänzi PōtterJul 5
@ranx @stux @krans@me.uk >> “Everyone free to go anywhere on the planet” worked without issues for literally thousands of years. << no issues except groups of people (say Persians) would invade the land of neighbouring "place" (say Egypt), kill or enslave local population, take its resources & move on to expand their "area of control". I think the "modern" idea of counties happened BECAUSE everyone was free to move anywhere [usually in large groups, with weapons] and settle wherever they like! 🤷‍♂️
Show threadSämiⒶ🇵🇸Jul 5
@ranx @krans @stux So we should invest in building social welfare infrastructure in countries outside our "fortress", possibly by taxing the rich more, and then we can abolish borders?
I'm in!
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@leomas @krans @stux abolishing borders sounds like when JL Picard said they didn't use money anymore in "First Contact", it's sci-fi. Borders can change but still, they will be there for quite some more time. I agree on tax the rich more though.
Show threadSämiⒶ🇵🇸Jul 5
@ranx @krans I'm not someone who thinks it's feasible today (I don't think I've seen someone argue that either, honestly), I believe that should be what humanity as a whole should strive for.
I think we fall into the trap of thinking, that because it's a long-term goal, we can't start real change into the direction, where it doesn't matter where you come from.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Show threadThe Great Llama Jul 5
@ranx @leomas @krans @stux
Borders exist because propaganda has convinced people that they exist to support their governments, rather than the opposite. JFK's "ask not what your country..." nonsense was exactly backward. With open borders, the US would be watching its population and tax revenue plummet right now.
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@TheGreatLlama @leomas @krans @stux ok, here's an example. Here in Italy universal healthcare is free (kinda) because our regions collect taxes to support it plus the government add extra cash every year to cover the budget. Following your reasoning, with no borders, there would be no government as we know it. So, with no national or regional government, free universal healthcare simply would cease to exist. Great achievement uh? ...anarchy, much fun!
Show threadThe Great Llama Jul 5
@ranx @leomas @krans @stux
I don't even know where to start with the leaps of logic you've just hand-waved past. Impossibly silly response. Have a good day, we're done.
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 6
@TheGreatLlama I'm sorry my comprehension of your english and your logic doesn't compare to your comprehension of mine or the italian language, byeee
Show threadThe Great Llama Jul 6

...aaaand now we're apparently going to pretend this is a language barrier issue, not a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of borders. As if there is no way to have services or any sort of structure without keeping some people in and keeping other people out.

Quick thought... How come all of these "illegal" immigrants getting picked up in the US keep getting picked up at their jobs and found via tax information? Seems like people tend to work where they choose to live, doesn't it?

Show threadSämiⒶ🇵🇸Jul 5
@ranx @TheGreatLlama @krans @stux Seriously, do you have no reading comprehension, or did you not read what I said?
We have to LONG-TERM build up the necessary system in other countries.
When people, no matter where they are from, have a decent standard of living and are safe in other regions, why would we need borders?
Show threadPasswordsarehard4Jul 5
@leomas @ranx @krans @stux why would they pay you? They can just leave. After tax season they can just come back.
Show threadSämiⒶ🇵🇸Jul 5
@passwordsarehard4 I'm not argueing against residence, in fact, I believe everyone should have a permanent residence, not more than one though, so no vacation homes for example.
And the rich should pay high taxes everywhere.
Show threadWalrus 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿Jul 5

@ranx @krans @stux

There was, though. It was called people helping each other.

Show threadMagnus AhltorpJul 5
@ranx @krans @stux Implicit here is that people who happen to be on one side of the border people are more worthy of said social welfare. That is a very problematic notion.
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@ahltorp @krans @stux Ethically, everyone is worthy of social welfare. That doesn't mean that everyone of those who pay for such welfare are happy to share it with newcomers or to experience their welfare to degrade because of these newcomers.
Show threadJairaj DevadigaJul 5
@ranx @krans @stux The far right makes this exact same argument.
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@jairajdevadiga @krans @stux so what? I'm also pro abortion, euthanasia, divorce, LGBTQIA+ rights and an atheist. Do you have something to say about that too?
Show threadJairaj DevadigaJul 5

@ranx @krans @stux I am also all of those things. But you are wrong on this one issue.

The far right uses the welfare state as a justification for mass deportations. They say that open borders are fiscally unsustainable, just as you do.

I would hope that you wouldn't give the fascists ammunition to use against migrants. Especially when it is not even true. Migrants on average pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare.

Show threadChase Oliver For PresidentJul 6
@stux @krans @ranx then address that concern rather than demonizing people who want a different life than they were born into.
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 6
@chaseforliberty hmm... you want to run for president but I think you didn't figure out how to properly respond to a thread on here, yet.
Show threadChase Oliver For PresidentJul 6
@ranx @stux @krans finally someone is talking sense
Show threadWalrus 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿Jul 5

@ranx @stux

Total anarchy sounds good. You must be one of those fascists.

Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@Walrus @stux listen, in my family I had my father and four uncles who fought against fascists and nazis, plus a 16-year-old uncle who died for being a partisan staffette during World War II, so fuck you.
Show threadG 🇮🇹Jul 5
@Walrus @stux It's #hilarious to see people, who call you #fascist just because you don't like total #anarchy, blocking you for getting a fuck you in response 😆
Show threadTor Iver WilhelmsenJul 5
@stux Or as Donald Trump said about the Canada-US border back when he wanted to annex it: «random lines on a map»
Show threadstux⚡Jul 5
@toriver Away with the lines! No more US or Canada and while we're at it, also dump Trump since no no
Show threadMiss WarcraftJul 5
@stux @toriver I guess you are also telling Palestine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Turkey, Iraq, Yemen, Libya etc. they do not have the right to borders? Or do you mean just The USA and European Countries?
Show threadלקס (לא לותור)Jul 5

@MissWarcraft @stux @toriver
Well, the entire thing about middle eastern borders is that they were drawn by the British Empire with not much logic behind them.

There isn't really a right or a reason to borders. They're artifacts of past and current struggles. If the middle east was peaceful, the borders would disappear, just like they have in the EU. That's what peace means, really.

And different states are just a method of not getting in each other's business. "You do you, I don't care".

Show threadJackJul 5
@stux@mstdn.social I think about it like, OK, arbitrary line in the dirt, on this side my rules my taxes, on that side your rules your taxes. If you were the controlling type, who wouldn't want more people on their side of the line? There should be billboards.
Show threadBrad Rubenstein “” [OLD ACCOUNT]Jul 5

@stux

Like who are you to tell me where I can and cannot go on this planet..

This was exactly the feeling of the Mongols in the 12th and 13th C, perhaps you can use their resulting approach as a model going forward.

Show threadstux⚡Jul 5

@BradRubenstein Difference is.. I don't have to own every single piece of land I come across  

We can also enjoy stuff without having to "own" it all I guess

Show threadBrad Rubenstein “” [OLD ACCOUNT]Jul 5

@stux

Too soon to tell.

Show threadstux⚡Jul 5

@BradRubenstein Tihi  

Hmm.. otherwise it won't be any different from all those before in history

Show threadBrad Rubenstein “” [OLD ACCOUNT]Jul 5
@stux
Show threadIvan CarapovicJul 5
@stux A country is just a garden around your house, but bigger. You probably wouldn't wanna let bad people enter and stay in your garden just like that...
Show threadstux⚡Jul 5

@Chapz What is "bad people"?  

Soneone who's trying to flee war and looking for a better home or?

The line is very thin

Show threadIvan CarapovicJul 5

@stux Bad people is subjective. It could be a murderer or simply someone I don't trust. But my point is I don't think anyone who wants no boders would also keep their door wide open at night for anyone who might want to enter. Otherwise it would be just double standards.

Borders exist for people inside to feel safe. Just like in medieval times when people for whatever reason preferred to live behind big stone walls. Safety comes before freedom.

Show threadMagnus AhltorpJul 5
@Chapz @stux Borders exist to uphold power structures. Power structures that usually have been created by your “bad people” and “murderers”.