New Year's Eve: Marxism-Lennonism Revisited
Nope!...this baby boomer, Never fell for that ruse. Using one's Mind, instead of one side or the other of the bicameral brain, this unicameral conscious being knows that you can't have an open bordered society until every last individual automatically respects the property of others, the basic unit of which Is the individual.
Otherwise why would marxist, globalist, starry eyed utopist wish to vanquish your right to property, your right to your own mind, your own thoughts, the rights to the harvest of your own efforts and to share at your will any abundance you produce as you see fit.
For that to happen...they'd have to leave you alone, and 'They', would otherwise starve as a result.
Otherwise why would marxist, globalist, starry eyed utopist wish to vanquish your right to property, your right to your own mind, your own thoughts, the rights to the harvest of your own efforts and to share at your will any abundance you produce as you see fit.
For that to happen...they'd have to leave you alone, and 'They', would otherwise starve as a result.
The United States has had a 3000-mile open border with Canda and neither side has a problem.
The border with Mexico is as much a result of Mexico's demand for one. They wanted to be their own country. For one thing, they did not want slavery, which we had. But they also wanted to be Catholic, which they finally gave up (legally) in 1920, but maintain culturally. That cultural inertia explains a lot.
Note that the first million Americans came from the United Kingdom and we fought two wars against them and threatened a third. From 1850 to 1920 immigrants came here from Ireland, Gemany, Italy and Central Europe (largely) and we went to war against Germany, Italy, and Central Europe (twice) but never against Ireland.
Being the arbitrary creation of Versailles, Czechoslovakia found itself happier as two countries. On the other hand, the equally arbitrary creation we call "Belgium" still exists as one nation (supposedly) though deeply divided French versus Dutch. Partition of Belgium background here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partiti.... And yet, for whatever animosities, they are not like the Palestinians and Israelis, who actually share so much it is as sad as it is scary. Meanwhile, Switzerland continues French, German, Italian, and one Canton "Romansh" whatever that really may be... They seem to get along well enough.
When you look at the history of South America, it seems like a law of nature that new nations go to war with each other. They want to flex their muscles. Their borders are not historically settled. Whatever. But why has no Finnish politican risen to annex Estonia? It would be easier to take than Iraq's ill-conceived invasion of Kuwait, which really was part of Iraq for all the difference it made or makes.
If fascism brings war, why is it that Spain and Portugal never went to war when they were fascist? They do have a dispute, 200 years old, in fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuga... But they do not have a problem with millions of people sloshing back and forth across the frontier to enjoy whatever marginal benefits of relocation may be had.
One of the agonies of Brexit is that now Ireland will have to go back to being partitioned. Think of that. The Republic had its own government. They wanted that, desperately for 400 years, but they still wanted access to British markets.
The lack of Gulching along the borders on the other side of Venezuela begs many questions. Supposedly, the people who have been fleeing socialism for almost 20 years are the producers. Why are the safe margins of Columbia, Guyana, and Brazil not showcases for free enterprise?
We have no internal borders in the USA. People come and go as they please. Something like 200 or 300 people move to Austin every day. On the other hand, since 2001, over twenty thousand people have not moved to New Hampshire. Libertarians like Gary Johnson so much that they nominated him to run for President. But his term of office as govermor in a state with a part-time legislature had no effect on prosperity there, while, in fact, in Albuquerque violent crime including police crime continued to rise.
All of the above (and more could be said) just outlines some of the aspects of a complex N-dimensional problem space. That space is bounded by the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that generated the original post from Robert Curry of "Intellectual Take-Out."
I also agree with your ending premise.
Borders become an issue when either or both sides don't see eye to eye, have conflicting histories and/or one side or the other are taught that the land on one side or the other was unjustly acquired. That is a failure to acknowledge history and an unwillingness to accept the consequences of the time those events occurred...get over it, I say.
And of course, we can't forget the moocher syndrome of which would not be so much of a problem if so much of the American left were not so hell bent on altruism and the "Keeping" of other fellow humans; which as we know, diminishes the potential of those kept, not to mention, at the cost of those not kept.
This issue becomes an issue of not respecting the property, the sovereignty and the lives of others.
Now, the issue of culture and language enters the big picture. On a general scale, we share much with Mexicans and that in itself is not a problem. It's nothing like Western culture and islamic culture which in most ways, is 180 degrees apart.
Language is a big problem, we need to communicate adequately to function properly with one another. Not to mention, the degree to which the different languages allow for integrated thought, behavior, world views and degrees of Conscious introspection or matters of conscience. The latter of which defines one's culture in a way.
Now, my last consideration is respect for the different cultures, the conscious benevolent one's anyway, those that are compatible.
Do we not appreciate, maybe even drawn to, one culture or another?j One cultural history or another.
As we say, when one visits France, you experience being French, or English, German, Swedish, Irish...etc, etc. Is that not an invisible "Border" in a sense?
Do we really want all things to be the same?
The world would be pretty boring if it were in my perspective.
So, does not the issue of respect for the "property" of others really define the issue of borders. The property of others includes his language, his outlook, his behavior, his history and mode of thinking?, (his mind).
A billboard at the border should read: BEHAVE YOURSELF!
Still, the first and second stanzas are fine; and I stand proudly for it when it is played in public.
Still, I would prefer a marching tune. And yet, I think that the ideal national anthem for this country has yet to be written.
The Berlin Wall comes to mind, to prevent East Germans from fleeing to the freer and more prosperous West Germany. The reason West Germany didn't build a wall was because of shared history, language, and racial makeup of their Eastern cousins, and the ease of those educated escapees fitting in and being productive.
Our problem is different. There is the culture clash and language barriers discussed in the article. Education is also a problem. Many of the illegals from the south are illiterate, even in their own language, so training for anything other than grunt labor is difficult. Growing up in communities where criminal activity is the order of the day makes our society of laws strange to many of them, so they lack the comprehension that our sense of order and respect for others' property is what makes our society so much safer than theirs.
A major issue is that these illegals carry diseases foreign to our population. We lack immunity to many parasitic, bacterial, and viral infections common to this population of invaders, creating a real possibility of a pandemic. The visa "overstayers" don't present this problem because they've been screened for disease prior to visa issue.
Canada presents no such issue, as we share a common language similar culture, and roughly the same level of individual affluence. That's the primary reason why there's no rush of Canadians across our Northern boder.
I was going to give myself the pleasure of pointing out your spelling mistake, then I read the article.
'Same difference' as we say here.
~"And no religion too.
Imagine all the peopler living life in peace."~
Tell that to a headhunting jihadist who freely waltzed into your country with a demands that you convert or else.
Ayn Rand excoriated the philosophers whom she regarded as betrayers of capitalism, Bentham, Mill, Spencer, and of course, the American conservatives around Naitonal Review.. Granted that, but look at how the left deals with it. It is why the former communists wrote a compilation called The God that Failed. Communism and socialism are more like religions than they are like the scientific disciplines they claim to be.
Not THEIRS. It has always been that way in any communist regime.