While I am aware ICE does not do anything related to border security and I’d like to live to see a world without borders, in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations. Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations.
We’re not talking about a socialist nation. We’re talking about the present day US.
Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Other than “weird religious groups,” all of that would be much easier to control with mostly open borders. When you have desperate people crossing the border, completely outside the system, then it’s much easier to hide contraband in that mass of people. Making immigration a formality doesn’t mean getting rid of basic customs checks entirely.
As for weird religious groups, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. The US is full of some of the weirdest religious groups in the world. I’m not sure there’s any religious group out there that’s weirder or more dangerous than the Christian nationalists we already have.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
I’m not talking about completely abolishing borders overnight. I’m talking about removing, for lack of a better word, the political component of borders. If people could freely cross borders with only a simple check to see if they’re carrying anything illegal, then borders have begun to “wither away.” Yes, they still exist, but only as a simple administrative function.
Wall of text elaborating on what I mean:
Let’s imagine a future that’s well on it’s way to communism, where borders still exist but have become nothing more than checkpoints for invasive species, a world where people grow up with them not meaning anything more than that. Perhaps those people would notice that natural habitats don’t map cleanly to borders, that it doesn’t make sense to have a checkpoints between two countries with shared habitats, or to not have checkpoints between different habitats in the same country. So, they simply decide to redraw borders around natural habitats, since the only function of the borders is to check for invasive species. In that world, where an inconceivable decision can be made so casually, we can say that borders, as we understand them, have ceased to exist. Yes, there are still lines on maps and checkpoints and searches, but they’re an entirely different thing from what we call borders today, so much so that we can reasonably say that borders have been abolished.
And perhaps their children will find that education about invasive species has improved to the point that the checkpoints never find anything anyway and are no longer necessary, perhaps they will reorganize the administration of natural habitats to remove these hard lines entirely, seeing as nature doesn’t follow hard lines, and regarding them as outdated.
It’s the same way, I find it hard to imagine how a world could function without some form of money. Certainly, if we tried to do it overnight, by decree, it wouldn’t work. But, if say housing was provided by the state, then people would be less desperate for money because they’re no longer scrambling to make rent. Someone who decides to stay in a relationship because renting on their own would be too expensive, would be free to decide such things based on how they really feel. In turn, perhaps someone decides that working out and staying fit will be a better way to appeal to a partner than making money, and so their drive for money decreases. An artist, who might otherwise take whatever commission they can find because they need to pay rent, might be more selective and exercise more creative control over their work. Etc.
We could imagine a world where all of the basic necessities of life are provided for without money, but money is still used for collectables and rare items. Like in Star Trek, there are some people who care a lot about “gold pressed latinum,” but there are others who don’t care about it at all. While currency exists, collecting it has become little more than a hobby, and it’s not someone anything needs. You could reasonably say that money, as we understand it today, has been abolished in Star Trek.
I think you might have misinterpreted my intention. I am not trying to run defence or even really discussing US border fascism. The other users post and your response just made me think about how stuff like that would work in a socialist world, which is why I put that at the top. Its the framing for the rest of the question.
While I am aware ICE does not do anything related to border security and I’d like to live to see a world without borders, in the world we have currently border security makes sense for socialists nations. Stopping influx of smugglers, agitators, weapons, drugs, weird religious groups, invasive biomass and stuff like that seems pretty good.
Speaking of “invasive” biomass I do actually wonder how that would function in a world without borders. The introduction of various plants and animals have done immense harm to various ecologies around the globe.
We’re not talking about a socialist nation. We’re talking about the present day US.
Other than “weird religious groups,” all of that would be much easier to control with mostly open borders. When you have desperate people crossing the border, completely outside the system, then it’s much easier to hide contraband in that mass of people. Making immigration a formality doesn’t mean getting rid of basic customs checks entirely.
As for weird religious groups, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. The US is full of some of the weirdest religious groups in the world. I’m not sure there’s any religious group out there that’s weirder or more dangerous than the Christian nationalists we already have.
I’m not talking about completely abolishing borders overnight. I’m talking about removing, for lack of a better word, the political component of borders. If people could freely cross borders with only a simple check to see if they’re carrying anything illegal, then borders have begun to “wither away.” Yes, they still exist, but only as a simple administrative function.
Wall of text elaborating on what I mean:
Let’s imagine a future that’s well on it’s way to communism, where borders still exist but have become nothing more than checkpoints for invasive species, a world where people grow up with them not meaning anything more than that. Perhaps those people would notice that natural habitats don’t map cleanly to borders, that it doesn’t make sense to have a checkpoints between two countries with shared habitats, or to not have checkpoints between different habitats in the same country. So, they simply decide to redraw borders around natural habitats, since the only function of the borders is to check for invasive species. In that world, where an inconceivable decision can be made so casually, we can say that borders, as we understand them, have ceased to exist. Yes, there are still lines on maps and checkpoints and searches, but they’re an entirely different thing from what we call borders today, so much so that we can reasonably say that borders have been abolished.
And perhaps their children will find that education about invasive species has improved to the point that the checkpoints never find anything anyway and are no longer necessary, perhaps they will reorganize the administration of natural habitats to remove these hard lines entirely, seeing as nature doesn’t follow hard lines, and regarding them as outdated.
It’s the same way, I find it hard to imagine how a world could function without some form of money. Certainly, if we tried to do it overnight, by decree, it wouldn’t work. But, if say housing was provided by the state, then people would be less desperate for money because they’re no longer scrambling to make rent. Someone who decides to stay in a relationship because renting on their own would be too expensive, would be free to decide such things based on how they really feel. In turn, perhaps someone decides that working out and staying fit will be a better way to appeal to a partner than making money, and so their drive for money decreases. An artist, who might otherwise take whatever commission they can find because they need to pay rent, might be more selective and exercise more creative control over their work. Etc.
We could imagine a world where all of the basic necessities of life are provided for without money, but money is still used for collectables and rare items. Like in Star Trek, there are some people who care a lot about “gold pressed latinum,” but there are others who don’t care about it at all. While currency exists, collecting it has become little more than a hobby, and it’s not someone anything needs. You could reasonably say that money, as we understand it today, has been abolished in Star Trek.
I think you might have misinterpreted my intention. I am not trying to run defence or even really discussing US border fascism. The other users post and your response just made me think about how stuff like that would work in a socialist world, which is why I put that at the top. Its the framing for the rest of the question.