Ending borders is a noble ideal but it’s not currently practical. People need many of the services their country provides, like healthcare, elderly care, pensions, unemployment assistance etc.
With no national boundaries, and no alternative system in place, society as we know it collapses.
Good, civilization should collapse. I want the human species to go extinct! Preferably before we wipe out the rest of all the animals and plants! Fucking pathetic humans.
well i guess law was originally derived from people’s ambition towards power and society’s need to still be organized. that’s a universal phenomenon, even if you encountered an exotic animal species on another planet, i reckon.
that’s what makes it more universal than you think.
a lot of details in our law are arbitrary, but so is math notation and even a lot of conventions that we use (consider 2π = 6.28 instead of π = 6.28). still, the core of the field is universal, i believe.
1+1 does not equal 2 even if you “notate” it differently. That’s the thing about math. compared to power structures invented by humans who have to kill each other over the “science” behind sharing a fucking drinking fountain with a black person.
There are and have been many different legal systems throughout the world and history. The one we’re familiar with is from the Romans - hence all the Latin legal terms - and was spread by colonialism.
It is nothing like math, which was discovered independently by various cultures around the world.
For more details read chapter 7 of David Graeber’s “Debt”
Non tangible things are still real. Families are real.
The creation of complex systems is uniquely human and is what allows development and progress.
Without these systems, laws and things including incorporatng non human entities has pros and cons. Development of healthcare and increasing longevity and increased food production, sanitation and reduction in hunger are a benefit. War and genocide are a problem. However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders. See Norse vikings, Roman empire creation etc.
They are inter-subjective realities. As opposed to subjective realities - the sky looks blue to me - and objective realities - the sky is blue because of the refraction of light and varies in color due to atmospheric conditions.
Laws exist because we say they do. Society and people follow patterns because of these laws. Abolishing these laws and borders would lead to societal breakdown without an alternative system to replace them.
Families are also constructs, borne of genetic reproduction. however we now understand them to include marriage and adoption and blended families. All constructs. All legalized also.
However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders
The concept of borders did not exist yet but the earliest wars was definitely about territories control for accessing more natural resources . It’s basically the same
This implies that the resources the people of Nataruk had at the time were valuable and worth fighting for, whether it was water, dried meat or fish, gathered nuts or indeed women and children. This shows that two of the conditions associated with warfare among settled societies—control of territory and resources— were probably the same for these hunter-gatherers, and that we have underestimated their role in prehistory.
Yes, of course. However, look at even ancient Greece, and legends of war for troy about love. The concept is older than the concept of countries. War is always about resource allocation, of you include people as a resource, which they are on a societal level. The designation of borders and countries is also partly about resource allocation.
Lol so I agree with you 100%. There is a strong case against the recognition of any states on that basis.
But, so long as we have a legal system that functions on the basis of this social construct, the idea that we should capriciously decide to recognize or not recognize various states doesn’t serve any practical purpose that I can see.
Especially when they, as a matter of fact, do exercise authority over a given territory.
States only exist in our minds.
And our legal system.
Ending borders is a noble ideal but it’s not currently practical. People need many of the services their country provides, like healthcare, elderly care, pensions, unemployment assistance etc.
With no national boundaries, and no alternative system in place, society as we know it collapses.
Good, civilization should collapse. I want the human species to go extinct! Preferably before we wipe out the rest of all the animals and plants! Fucking pathetic humans.
The legal system also only exists because we wrote our thoughts down. It’s barely more real than a border.
so does math. still nobody would argue that math is wrong or arbitrary because of that
math exists outside of humanity though. it is a priori. nation states exist because some people decided to enslave others.
well i guess law was originally derived from people’s ambition towards power and society’s need to still be organized. that’s a universal phenomenon, even if you encountered an exotic animal species on another planet, i reckon.
that’s what makes it more universal than you think.
a lot of details in our law are arbitrary, but so is math notation and even a lot of conventions that we use (consider 2π = 6.28 instead of π = 6.28). still, the core of the field is universal, i believe.
1+1 does not equal 2 even if you “notate” it differently. That’s the thing about math. compared to power structures invented by humans who have to kill each other over the “science” behind sharing a fucking drinking fountain with a black person.
Our system of law was derived from the Romans who thought people could own other people.
There are and have been many different legal systems throughout the world and history. The one we’re familiar with is from the Romans - hence all the Latin legal terms - and was spread by colonialism.
It is nothing like math, which was discovered independently by various cultures around the world.
For more details read chapter 7 of David Graeber’s “Debt”
Non tangible things are still real. Families are real.
The creation of complex systems is uniquely human and is what allows development and progress.
Without these systems, laws and things including incorporatng non human entities has pros and cons. Development of healthcare and increasing longevity and increased food production, sanitation and reduction in hunger are a benefit. War and genocide are a problem. However, wars still happened before the introduction of borders. See Norse vikings, Roman empire creation etc.
They are inter-subjective realities. As opposed to subjective realities - the sky looks blue to me - and objective realities - the sky is blue because of the refraction of light and varies in color due to atmospheric conditions.
Realities nonetheless.
Laws exist because we say they do. Society and people follow patterns because of these laws. Abolishing these laws and borders would lead to societal breakdown without an alternative system to replace them.
Families are also constructs, borne of genetic reproduction. however we now understand them to include marriage and adoption and blended families. All constructs. All legalized also.
The concept of borders did not exist yet but the earliest wars was definitely about territories control for accessing more natural resources . It’s basically the same
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-brutal-massacre-may-be-earliest-evidence-war-180957884/
Yes, of course. However, look at even ancient Greece, and legends of war for troy about love. The concept is older than the concept of countries. War is always about resource allocation, of you include people as a resource, which they are on a societal level. The designation of borders and countries is also partly about resource allocation.
States are a…state of mind
Lol so I agree with you 100%. There is a strong case against the recognition of any states on that basis.
But, so long as we have a legal system that functions on the basis of this social construct, the idea that we should capriciously decide to recognize or not recognize various states doesn’t serve any practical purpose that I can see. Especially when they, as a matter of fact, do exercise authority over a given territory.
Yes, as long as the people with guns say I must believe in states I will pretend to believe in states.
Like a toddler of the corn with an imaginary friend.