when there are legitimate reasons for restricting freedom of movement
but most of them relate to extant state actors and the people they use as catspaws
I feel like there's some lesson here about self-perpetuating problems, but I'm not enough of an anarchist to word it good
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Can we go to the beach?
Croatia: Absolutely fucking notItaly: A single mountain isn't a country
San Marino: just fucking watch us be one!
Italy: Fine, but a hill isn't a country, it's too small
Vatican: If I may...
C'mon! They get a speck of beach. A speck should be enough for any country.
You know what I do when I see people (kids or adults) walking through my property? Nothing. Because they aren’t hurting me by taking a shortcut.
i go "OI, mind the crocuses will ya? have a biscuit"
I already loved this format. This is a blending of two things that I adore, and I am grateful for it.
This has been one of the anarchic ideas I have questions about.
Let’s say we have a burgeoning anarchic society. We’ve solved issues with intracommunity violence, production, and distribution. We’ve managed to negotiate peace with neighboring states so they aren’t a direct threat anymore. It’s the anarchist paradise we always wanted and things are going great.
However, one of these non-hostile states nearby gets involved in a war with another state. They end up losing and things get bad. Millions of refugees end up fleeing into the anarchist territory, far more than can easily be accommodated with existing systems. Furthermore, most of these people have been indoctrinated into thinking anarchists are violent, dangerous weirdos and don’t have any interest in our new society. They just want to keep doing their authoritarian capitalism but in a place that isn’t on fire.
I’m not saying borders are the best solution to this problem but it is clearly a problem that is possible or even likely to occur in the future. How would an anarchist society solve this issue? Isn’t there a danger that a wave of too many people with anti-anarchist ideology might risk the destruction of an anarchist society?
How did that state end up at peace with us previously if they were indoctrinated into hating us? If we're doing thought experiment, let's at least make them coherent.
Realistically, after we've reached the point of having a functioning anarchist society, there's no states left because nobody would need such a silly thing.
Lots of reasons people can be at peace and still hate one another. Look around the world there are tons of examples. I’m not saying we’re best buds, just not actively killing each other. Hell, the existence of another nearby hostile power is a classic way this happens, which perfectly matches the hypothetical.
I personally think the idea of an instantaneous global revolution is totally ridiculous so I don’t find this answer very compelling. Even if global anarchy is achieved which is not a certain thing, there will be a period of transition, and some regions will transition faster than others.
Zach Weinersmith's Open Borders is a fantastic (and amusingly illustrated) discussion of these types of concerns.
Thanks, I will check it out.
most of these people have been indoctrinated into thinking anarchists are violent, dangerous weirdos and don’t have any interest in our new society.
People depending on the help of others (as those refugees would) tend to be surprisingly open-minded and would likely come to see the advantages of such a society rather quickly. It is usually only when they are met with hostility and cramped into refugee camps that they turn on the country hosting them. And in general anarchists are well accustomed having to deal with people with all sorts of differing ideas, so they will likely work out something that is acceptable for everyone.
Same way you solved all those other problems that require coordination despite not having any.
Don't even get me started on enclaves and exclaves.
You know who advocates for open borders? Labor economists advocate for open borders!
of course there are benefits, they just arent for me or you
You nailed it brother
Who let Pixy in here?
Australia never had any borders.
We just rely on the monstrously poisonous wildlife to keep the 'fugees at bay.
Nah, Aus has requirements too
Then you guys should live without doors. Why do you need to keep people out of your home?
Imagine not knowing the difference between personal, private, and public property
Go on, you're almost there...you're so close...keep rubbing those brain cells together, they've almost come up with a complete thought.
If Doors are akin to Private property then... Borders are akin to...come on, I know you know it.
Here, I'll give you a hint:
Individual, Town, City, County, State, Nation. These are all part of it...and they all share something similar...
This is not the own you think it is...
you know that's how people used to live for the vast majority of history, right? the fact that people these days feel the need for locked doors is really sad.
