What If You Dropped The Silly Notion of Borders?

Artificial borders, drawn with crayon or colored pencils on paper that serves as your meta-metaphor, making precisions beyond plain continental drift (we’re land animals) is really silly on Kindergarten proportions.

I won’t belabor how fucktarded you are. Thank me later.

Why does everyone agitate over borders?

No, REALLY, why does everyone agitate over borders?

Money.

And you call yourselves Democratic Socialists.

Let me unpack it for you, and I’ll try to set the underlying principles aside, and just speak to your base animal brain.

Loins, hyenas, and all predators guard their turf for one primary reason: limited resources. Imagine a lion or any big cat deal where fauna was so prevalent they almost never needed to get off their ass.

But in a human social democracy, there is no such thing as plenty, and this is the design.

Give us your money. We’ll make sure they get it.

Far more people on planet earth in 2015 will buy that line than there are people who will say “fuck off, get along by your own self.”

Simply put, borders are a way for leftists to make sure the spoils of their theft go to their constituency, while for the right, it’s a way to make sure that their principle compromises in giving the left everything the left wants while making meaningless distinctions, nonetheless keep out the heathens.


Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.

13 Comments

  1. Bb on October 21, 2015 at 23:06

    Libertarians use boarders too. You know, do define property boundaries and stuff. Gosh, I bet you even have some property boundaries somewhere that you use to keep people the fuck away.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 22, 2015 at 06:37

      Nation borders are not the same thing as invididual property lines.

      Consider how relatively few national borders there are (in the thousands, perahsp) compared to individual property lines (in the billions). Now how many of the former are in a constant state of dispute, unheaval, antagonism, etc., compared with the latter.

      That’s because people see the latter as some form of rational limits on an individual, familial, or business space and not necessarily so with the latter, often seen as arbitrary.

      • Bernhard Rohrbeck on November 4, 2015 at 01:18

        Richard I see.
        You fell for that scam as well. No borders. Keep watching the killing of a continent with the tool of no borders. It unfolds quickly, so not a lot of patience needed.



      • Anand Srivastava on November 18, 2015 at 03:18

        Lets see how this boundary of ownership works. An individual doesn’t live alone (sometimes they do though). But mostly they live with some people. Then yes there are some things that are definitely theirs, but others are shared. If people are living in an extended family, the individual sub families will own somethings, and other things will be shared by the whole family.

        Then we can take the case of a primitive tribe. The whole tribe is like a very large family. Where the whole owns somethings, families within own some other things, and individuals own other things.

        What I am talking about is a heirarchy. Not everything can be divided by individuals. We will want to live in communities where there are parts that are owned by the community not the individuals. Maintenance of those things will have to be done by the whole community. Some will be able to support the maintenance more than others.

        People in the community will want to have a say in who joins the community and who doesn’t. Although as the community grows bigger this becomes more difficult.

        I believe that the best way of organizing the governance and maintenance of a large piece of land where millions live is via a heirarchical structure. Basically communities of communities.

        Taxation is inevitable for the maintenance and governance of the land. The best is if it is done at the community level. But that causes a problem if the community only thinks about its own maintenance. Rich People will gravitate towards community that has rich people. So that that community will prosper, while the poor communities will lose their best people, because it will be better to live in the richer communities. The main reason would be that taxation will be lower for the richer individuals in the richer communities.

        If we want to build a heirarchical community structure, its important to keep taxation rate similar for each community. Rich people will still gravitate towards the richer community as it will be more comfortable for them, but the taxation on the rich people will be same so that the rich community will collect a lot more taxes, which would need to be used to support the poorer communities. With technology it becomes easier to govern businesses in poor communities without living there.

        Sorry for rambling.



  2. sassysquatch on October 22, 2015 at 08:45

    Stealers Wheel – Good group and good song to make your point. My fave song of theirs is ‘Star’.

  3. Eric on October 22, 2015 at 13:27

    I think that for the right, borders are a way to make sure that the spoils of their theft go to the wealthy and powerful who control the government quite a bit anyway, especially in things that really matter, so they are just stealing for themselves. That’s been going on thousands of years, it’s called civilization. No matter how hard people try to implement collective civilization there are always those with selfish interests who will try even harder to get what they want, though a lot of collectivism does sneak through, both by the efforts of idealists and also due the powerful allowing it so people don’t rebel too much and take their power away. So then there’s balance, total collectivism cannot work except with small groups of genetically related individuals. When those groups come into contact they compete, and when that competition is institutionalized with the winners at the top and the ones they let live at the bottom, that’s civilization.

    • Dan on October 22, 2015 at 18:08

      Nailed it!

    • Glenn on October 23, 2015 at 17:20

      The issue with civilization as such is that structure and wording mask what it actually is, and that’s extortion. Government, lobbyists, unions and the bigger corporations are just playing the role of the mafia and implementing protection practices. If you take the brouhaha over Uber, for instance, something that is happening all over the world. What is happening there is that the people that have taken the license fees need to apply the protection the license fees have paid for. It’s not a government, its protectionism, on a larger scale that’s what the borders stand for. The protection of each patch of economic rape and pillage.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 23, 2015 at 17:26

        Glenn, what if what you describe is more anti-civilization? I mean that in a more universal sense.



  4. Glenn on October 23, 2015 at 19:48

    It’s not a term that I had heard before. I had to get the definition of anti-civilization. I wouldn’t say I am anti-civilization, I’m against the protectionism that is built into the existing mechanisms of government. I understand that this has been going on for a long time and all over the world. It should be though that the market should be allowed to do its thing without intervention from the government because invariably they stuff it up.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 24, 2015 at 07:26

      I wasn’t actually using any formal definition I’m aware of, just a juxtaposition. Rather than saying that “civilization” has all these bad things baked in the cake, it’s perhaps not really civilization but foces of anti-civilization acting against a truly civilized society.

      For one, initiating force and coercion is wholly uncivilized in my book and it’s the raison d’etre of the State. So, the state and all the democratic or repesentaive, legislative, parlimentary, etc., associated with is are uncivilized and so in large part we live in an anti-civilization.

      True civilization begins in a nice home with a nice family that’s part of a small social communy that does not use force and coercion on one another.

  5. Anand Srivastava on November 18, 2015 at 02:58

    I read today the following for refugee problem. It is very relevant to this debate.

    As for illegal immigration, human migration operates on the principle of desperation, not invitation. People don’t leave everything they know for long, dangerous journeys through hostile lands to get to a place where they can scrub toilets and build houses they can’t afford to buy because they enjoy it. Unless you are going to make life less inviting than the places they are fleeing, you can’t stop them. You can’t stop them with walls, fences, politicians, laws…never have and never will. Do you think you can scare someone desperate to escape whatever violent impoverished situation they are fleeing in central america by walking all the way to the US? You can’t. Unless Europeans reopen the death camps people are going to try to escape their terrible Middle East situations by going there. If America somehow deported every last illegal immigrant, they would just come back. Are you going to kill them? Because that is what it would take.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 18, 2015 at 07:46

      I agree with that, Anand.

      The masses of them are truly testament to just how very shitty it is over there. What is one to do? While I’m sure some who intend to do harm are among them, there are people who intend to do harm amongst everyone all the time.

      If their numbers weren’t relatively small, we wouldn’t even exist.

      One thing that’s dumb is western countries preventing radicals from emigrating to Syria, to their Caliphate. Let them go.

      As for the refugees in general, guess we’ll see how it plays out. I don’t think it’s wise to literally sac some small towns with them, however.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.