Discussion Title: Should Land Boundaries/Borders Exist?

1. Land boundaries/borders should not exist.
1.1. Con: Nature creates natural boundaries \(like mountains, for instance\), so it's inevitable to avoid them.
1.1.1. Pro: France is surrounded by many [natural boundaries](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/boundary/) that separates it from other countries. The boundary between France and Spain follows the peaks of the Pyrenees Mountains, while the Alps separate France from Italy. These are very hard to do away with.
1.1.2. Pro: Most geographical frontiers do not change often.
1.2. Con: Borders allow to determine legal responsibilities. If I make a wrong use of my land, I am responsible. If there are no boundaries, the land belongs to everyone, and nobody is held responsible.
1.2.1. Pro: Dividing the ocean into national territories would help prevent overfishing and other forms of exploitation.
1.2.1.1. Con: It is difficult to divide oceans equitably or peacefully as many countries have overlapping claims on many oceans.
1.2.1.2. Con: Policing such territories that equate to two times the space of dry land would be incredibly expensive.
1.2.2. Con: Most groups or society that share land or other resources will share responsibility, rather than arguing it doesn't exist.
1.2.2.1. Pro: For example, in groups that practice [Transformative Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_justice), the whole group is involved in the process, taking responsibility for working towards a positive outcome.
1.2.3. Pro: Borders are a historical construct that helped to establish laws and share the responsibility of enforcing those laws between rulers, who traded this responsibility for influence. The existence of borders nowadays is not ideal, but they are necessary to avoid anarchy, as forming a global government is not possible currently or in the near future.
1.2.4. Con: Individual responsibility for one's actions is separate from one's property, so people can still be held responsible for mismanagement of land they do not own.
1.3. Con: Boundaries help with understanding each other's image \(brand, purpose, personality, etc.\).
1.3.1. Con: Land boundaries prevent clashes/civil wars based on [nationality and ethnicity](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/148780/1/862526043.pdf), because people can't live with each other's differences easily.
1.3.1.1. Pro: When people are enforced into multi-ethnic enclaves and not allowed to associate with similar people, it results in civil wars \(such as those in [Yugoslavia](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2539081.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ab7b98257235a074972b861112504f8cd), [Iraq](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24557416.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A9da4890e0da8524347b8c5da1a5634a2), [Ukraine](https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine)\).
1.3.2. Pro: Borders allow people who agree on a certain set of principles to get together and live by them.
1.3.2.1. Pro: Within national boundaries, a [constellation](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/24/national-identity-fake-toxic-intolerance-italy-fascism) of values, ideas, political dreams, cultural concerns and common purposes are shared, nurtured and fought for by the people.
1.3.2.2. Pro: Boundaries are necessary for like-minded people to group together, as these groups would be too fluid \(due to the influx/outflow of people not being born into them\) to be able to have some place of their own without them.
1.3.2.2.1. Con: If anything, boundaries should not be in place for like-minded people to coalesce, as they won't be able to when borders exist.
1.3.2.2.2. Pro: This helps with people from the outside to know what a group is about and where they're located to join.
1.3.2.2.3. Pro: Boundaries allow values to coalesce and for visually displaying the extent that it reaches \(much like internet groups with a label and staying on one site, even though people aren't born into it\).
1.3.3. Pro: National and cultural identities are reinforced by boundaries where outsiders have controlled access. Dilution of this reduces them both.
1.4. Pro: Boundaries are just [arbitrary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/arbitrary) \(not realistic\) lines that could be decided and changed at any moment. Never-ending changes could be confusing for people to follow.
1.4.1. Con: In order to avoid never ending changes, we need to set boundaries to those changes.
1.4.2. Con: -> See 1.1.2.
1.5. Pro: Borders/boundaries are arbitrary lines that are not real \(except when placed in reality\) and thus do not exist.
1.5.1. Con: Even when the borders do not exist physically, they still exist as concepts, in a verbal form. The existence of the word "boundary" is by itself a proof that the concept exists. In the same manner, "vampires" and "elves" do not exist in the physical world, but they exist anyway in the form of concepts.
1.5.2. Pro: Many countries act as though borders do not exist when it is in their interest to do so.
1.5.3. Con: Even if the reason for, and the way borders are placed are ultimately arbitrary, they are necessary for management of movement when there's a lack of better alternatives.
1.6. Con: Boundaries help establish security and can facilitate economic growth, competitiveness, and equilibria.
1.6.1. Pro: Boundaries allow for trust, as agreement that are made can be followed/broken and the aftermath reveals the true character of the individuals in the agreement.
1.6.2. Pro: Borders are an approximation of true desires \(protection \(safety, security\), growth, independence, freedom\) and thus can/should be replaced with better \(an arrangement that does not cause war\) to accommodate them.
1.6.2.1. Con: Eliminating borders increases freedom too. On Earth, people would be able to circumnavigate it freely without borders.
1.6.3. Con: Country boundaries intensify inequality by allowing wealthy countries to limit access to their wealth.
1.6.3.1. Pro: Fair and humane employment, trade and environmental standards should apply worldwide, regardless of whether borders exist or not \(because they apply [extraterritorially](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/extraterritorially)\).
1.6.3.1.1. Pro: Fair and humane universal labor standards have the potential to prevent [exploitation](https://journals.openedition.org/eces/290) of many individuals.
1.6.3.1.1.1. Pro: Labor is undergoing [exploitation](https://journals.openedition.org/eces/290) in many countries which prevents the achievement of global equity and fairness. If boundaries/borders do not exist, then it would be easier to ban [child labor](http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079934475/547667-1135281552767/Child_Labor_issues.pdf) and [inhumane working hours or conditions](https://www.sustainyourstyle.org/old-working-conditions) globally, as countries would no longer be able to justify their unfair domestic laws based on their boundary protections with the new international standards.
1.6.3.1.2. Pro: Human obligation to providing human rights unilaterally are prevalent everywhere, and thus are everyone's responsibility, regardless of where they're located. Having borders should not get in the way of this international collaborative progress for standardization.
1.6.3.1.3. Con: If strict employment, trade and environmental standards begin to be applied worldwide, many companies would shut down and cause widespread [unemployment](https://www.resourcesmag.org/archives/how-do-environmental-policies-affect-employment/).
1.6.3.1.3.1. Pro: The coal industry provides about [seven million](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States) employment opportunities worldwide. These are likely to be lost if the coal industry is shut down due to high pollution rates.
1.6.3.2. Pro: Much of the wealth of these countries has come from exploiting global labor and resources. This wealth should be available to all.
1.6.4. Pro: Our world is advancing in corruption and blowing up our attachment to the world. If we manage to even remove boundaries/borders to exist, then the world would be in chaos.
1.6.4.1. Pro: Boundaries can act as firewalls to external issues. If chaos spreads in one parcel, the next one can be protected from it thanks to boundaries.
1.7. Pro: Ownership and responsibility for land does NOT equal to penning off people into groups divided by artificial orders that prevent [freedom of movement](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/) - which is an innate human need and right.
1.7.1. Pro: The right to freedom of movement can only be [taken away](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/) from a person who is convicted of committing a serious crime, and even in that case it is temporary. For those who have not committed any crime, they should be able to freely enjoy this right and not be penned off in groups divided by artificial borders.
1.8. Pro: In an age of globally connected communities facilitated by the internet and advanced communication, trade, relationships and human interactions can no longer be limited by age old borders. National borders must go to create communities that are based on shared values not on physical territory.
1.8.1. Con: Communities entirely based on shared values would result in extremely homogeneous communities, which is not ideal.
1.8.2. Pro: People are much freer to build what they want to without limits in the digital realm with anyone for the most part welcome to look and participate \(like how Kialo is built\). Any borders would be ineffective, because people would just create and welcome somewhere else. The only limitation's one's capabilities to think, immerse, and build what they want and need.
1.8.3. Pro: Having no borders or no rules for crossing borders does not take away the right of the Sovereign organisation to stipulate rights and privileges to residents. So a person with documentation showing that they are indigenous to the sovereign state could enjoy different benefits to those that are coming from elsewhere. People would be able to chose their locations based on personal preference instead of financial or political duress. This would free the choice of location and enrich poor locations.
1.9. Con: Establishing and enforcing a national border is the right of a nation's people and government.
1.9.1. Pro: A national border helps its people to be governed more [effectively](https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/focus-areas/border-control/), which benefits the people living in it.
1.10. Pro: On Earth, with limited land space and a growing population, land will run out with people claiming land and protecting it with their border.
1.10.1. Con: Land will run out, with or without boundaries. It may even run out faster if we don't set boundaries to the use of lands. We should restrict the right to exploit natural pristine forests for instance.
1.10.2. Con: If we leave Earth, then this will not be as much of an issue.
1.10.3. Pro: Climate change will affect different countries to different degrees. Open borders will allow people to move away from unhabitable areas.
1.10.3.1. Pro: People living on [island nations](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/islands-sea-level-rise-flooding-uninhabitable-climate-change-maldives-seychelles-hawaii-a8321876.html), such as the [Maldives](https://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/republic-of-maldives.html) and [Indonesia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/27/why-is-indonesia-moving-its-capital-city-everything-you-need-to-know), which are projected to drown as a result of climate change \(from [less than a meter](https://www.adaptation-undp.org/explore/maldives) of sea level rise\), would likely find it easier to move away from the country in the absence of border restrictions.
1.10.3.1.1. Con: Even in the absence of border restrictions, this relocation is likely to be expensive \(it will cost Indonesia [$33 billion to move its capital](https://www.businessinsider.com/indonesia-capital-move-jakarta-borneo-environmental-concerns-2019-8)\). Developing countries in particular might have a hard time with such measures.
1.10.3.2. Pro: It's a personal responsibility of countries to take in migrants due to climate change, as everyone plays a part in it.
1.10.3.2.1. Pro: By 2050, environmental migrants are projected to reach [1 billion](https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/). To prevent migrant crisis in the future, countries should volunteer to take them in to fulfill their personal responsibility and compensate for their contribution towards climate change.
1.11. Con: Boundaries serve a purpose: protect, which is why they exist \(because people put them in due to the need and boundaries worked to fulfill it\).
1.11.1. Pro: If land borders do not exist, then anyone could have access anywhere, which opens up for people to cause trouble where a border/boundary would prevent that.
1.11.1.1. Pro: There are many places that are unsafe for people to walk on. If there are clear boundaries and border demarcations, it is easier to prevent people from getting into such trouble.
1.11.1.2. Pro: In the absence of boundaries and borders, it is possible that people walk onto private properties, and may be prosecuted for [trespassing](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-trespassing-law.html) \(both civil and criminal liability\). This will have negative consequences for the trespasser: payment of fines, imprisonment and restraining orders, which could easily have been prevented in the first place.
1.11.1.3. Pro: Many countries have border control or exit lists to prevent dangerous criminals from fleeing to other states and causing harm. In the absence of boundaries, it is unlikely to prevent this harm.
1.11.2. Pro: Boundaries protect entities on the outside from getting harmed/injured.
1.11.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.11.1.1.
1.11.2.2. Con: If something dangerous is not built, there is no need to set up boundaries around it to prevent danger from occurring.
1.11.3. Pro: Family unity is reinforced by boundaries where outsiders have controlled access. Dilution of this reduces perceived security.
1.11.4. Con: Boundaries are not tangible enough to physically protect. This is evidenced in Trump's desire to '[build a wall](https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/08/donald-trump-people-build-walls-because-they-love-the-people-on-the-inside/)', as there is no solid divide that comes with them.
1.11.4.1. Con: A national border is in fact physical and tangible enough to protect, since security forces can prevent unauthorized persons from entering the nation's territory.
1.12. Pro: Borders help to contribute to divisiveness among different groups of people. This as a result leads to strong patriotism coming from both parties which can often lead to unecessary violence, and even dealier conflicts.
1.12.1. Pro: Borders are used as an excuse for irrational bias.
1.12.2. Pro: People get hurt when borders are crossed, especially when the boundary is unknown and a person crosses a line that is not shown in reality but exists in someone's mind.
1.12.2.1. Pro: Migration lines for multiple peoples existed well before any borders and still exist today. For example, Indigenous peoples are suffering from the creation of borders of their territory and cannot live according to their culture.
1.12.3. Con: The old proverb is true - "Good fences make good neighbors". Property rights and the rule of law are essential to modern civilization.
1.13. Con: Due to [systems theory](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Thermodynamics/Fundamentals_of_Thermodynamics/A_System_and_Its_Surroundings), boundaries prevent change from occurring within them, so people have a foundation to work from.
1.13.1. Pro: Without boundaries, anyone could mess up something that someone is trying to build, which leads to nothing getting done.
1.13.2. Con: There is no need to have a boundaries for a foundation, as once something gets made, not everyone could enjoy it with boundaries/borders set up to protect it.
1.13.3. Con: Some concepts are better not to get built and so a foundation would not be necessary to create.
1.13.3.1. Pro: For instance, if people work on something that goes awry \(such as a dictatorship\), then people have less power to demolish/prevent it with boundaries.
1.13.4. Pro: Without defined land boundaries, commerce in land and buildings upon them is insecure. This is the reason why advanced economic states have land registries, to safeguard the rights and responsibilities of land ownership.