Why are borders important?

ChapelHillSooner said:
I think it is because countries invest effort in developing their economy, infrastructure, laws, etc. to serve their people and represent their citizen's shared values.

As a concrete practical example, let's say a country invests heavily in infrastructure paid for by decades of taxes and sweat. Shouldn't they have a say in whether a person who didn't invest in the infrastructure could reap the benefits of it? In addition, if there was no such thing as state borders, people might not ever choose to make investments in the common good.
Click to expand...
Sales taxes, SPLOST, and fuel taxes are paid by everyone that buys any products in that area. Since most investment is via taxes, citizenship status doesn't seem to be a factor in investment.
 
Tar1978Heel said:
They can all they need is a valid passport and either a B-1/B-2 visa or a Border Crossing Card (BCC) to legally enter the country for business purposes…
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. This is itself evidence that the southern border and the NC/VA border are thought of very differently. I'm trying to figure out if there's a good reason for that -- outside of things like national security, which is a side issue that doesn't really address the topic head-on.
 
superrific said:
Well, then, maybe NC and VA need to get their act together and police their borders, huh?

Tell me the distinction between that border and the US Mexico border. Why should it be something horrible for a citizen of Juarez to drive into El Paso to do business, whereas we don't bat an eye at Hoos coming into NC and taking our jobs or business opportunities?
Click to expand...
I believe they do bat an eye when a person living in VA works in NC. it's in taxes.

A couple of years I worked in two states and had to file state taxes in both states.

Also, back when the BMW plant opened, I applied, but I was informed that for the first round of hires had to be residents of the state of.SC.

So there are some things in place, I believe, to protect state boundaries.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Well, you definitely have different levels of infrastructure when you go from one state to another. The roads definitely change when you go from Texas to Oklahoma. I don't remember which is worse but I do remember there being a significant difference.

That difference is minor when compared to going from Mexico to Texas. Our states all get funding from the federal government which levels things out to some extent although I would guess that whole paying taxes to the federal government then having them returned to the states is probably something that will be going away soon.
Click to expand...
Are you making a free rider argument or a property argument? Or both? By that, I mean there are two distinct principles that are consistent with what you've written here.

1. Free riding. If people can enjoy infrastructure that they don't pay for in some way, then they will not invest in their own infrastructure. And then the people who are inclined to invest in their infrastructure will realize they are being played for suckers, so they will stop investing. The result is less infrastructure investment because everyone has an incentive to try to make others pay for it.

2. Property rights. This is basically the idea that "we built it; it's ours; we thus have the power to exclude." If this sounds like a caricature, I'm not intending it that way (and it's only an analogy anyway because no property rights are actually being asserted). I mean, the power to exclude is a fundamental right of property. We might think poorly of people who yell "get off my lawn" but that is, under any system of private property I'm aware of (not counting edge cases, of which there are many), considered their right. They don't need a reason.
 
UNCatTech said:
I believe they do bat an eye when a person living in VA works in NC. it's in taxes.

A couple of years I worked in two states and had to file state taxes in both states.

Also, back when the BMW plant opened, I applied, but I was informed that for the first round of hires had to be residents of the state of.SC.

So there are some things in place, I believe, to protect state boundaries.
Click to expand...
Dual-filing isn't an essential aspect of a border. It's just a consequence of the way our state tax systems work.

I'm surprised that the "SC hires first" rule was legal. I'd have to review some law I haven't looked at in a while, but that surprises me. So anyway, why should that be the law? It's only of moderate relevance, but moderate is enough for discussion.
 
superrific said:
You're missing the point. This is itself evidence that the southern border and the NC/VA border are thought of very differently. I'm trying to figure out if there's a good reason for that -- outside of things like national security, which is a side issue that doesn't really address the topic head-on.
Click to expand...
Of course they are VA and NC are in the United States…Also as a American Citizen what country can I go to and work in without the proper paperwork…You asked could someone from Mexico cross the border and work in the US and the answer is yes with the correct paperwork…You have to have rules without them what do you have…
 
Tar1978Heel said:
Of course they are VA and NC are in the United States……You have to have rules without them what do you have…
Click to expand...
Right. This is always the answer provided. I'm asking why. First, are you arguing that rules are good in and of themselves? Like, a good society is defined by the number of rules it has? If not, what's the purpose of the rule? If it doesn't bother NC for a VA resident to move there and/or work there, why should it bother Texas for a Mexican resident to do the same?

Also, in the EU, the borders between countries are considered the same as the borders between states here -- i.e. there are no restrictions on travel. It has worked well for them, just as the free movement of people within the US has largely worked well for us.
 
I think one additional question in this is whether having an open southern border would bring Mexico up to the level of the US without significantly impacting our standard of living. One could argue that it might. Another argument that could be made is that it could but oniy if we shared a government or had more tightly intertwined governments like US states or EU countries.

But that brings up another point. Mexico has a cartel problem. That might be in large part caused by the US but that is beside the point. The fact is that they are unable to control organized crime to a level we would consider acceptable. Situations like that would explain why two governments are are almost entirely independent might desire strong borders.

There isn’t a similar analogy for US states because for now at least we have a strong federal government that can make sure that organized crime is somewhat in check.

Which would be another reason why a strong federal government is necessary. If we remove that and states operate mostly independently we could end up with one or two as failed states. Once that happens there would either be a move back to a strong federal government or a move to kick failed states out of the union (or non-failed states secede).

Getting a bit off topic. My point is that open borders probably only work if there is a unifying force over them. In the EU it is pretty weak but I am not sure that the EU model has proven it is sustainable over the long haul.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I think one additional question in this is whether having an open southern border would bring Mexico up to the level of the US without significantly impacting our standard of living. One could argue that it might. Another argument that could be made is that it could but oniy if we shared a government or had more tightly intertwined governments like US states or EU countries.

But that brings up another point. Mexico has a cartel problem. That might be in large part caused by the US but that is beside the point. The fact is that they are unable to control organized crime to a level we would consider acceptable. Situations like that would explain why two governments are are almost entirely independent might desire strong borders.

There isn’t a similar analogy for US states because for now at least we have a strong federal government that can make sure that organized crime is somewhat in check.

Which would be another reason why a strong federal government is necessary. If we remove that and states operate mostly independently we could end up with one or two as failed states. Once that happens there would either be a move back to a strong federal government or a move to kick failed states out of the union (or non-failed states secede).

Getting a bit off topic. My point is that open borders probably only work if there is a unifying force over them. In the EU it is pretty weak but I am not sure that the EU model has proven it is sustainable over the long haul.
Click to expand...
1. There is already free trade between Mexico and the U.S. Thus are Mexican workers already in economic competition with American workers. That has not brought Mexican living standards up to those of the U.S. Open borders would not change that -- after all, there's quite a range of prosperity between communities and states in the U.S. even without restrictions on travel.

2. I'm not talking about bringing Mexico under the jurisdiction of the United States, so I'm not sure how the cartel problem affects the question. In the EU, passports are required for travel. They are used to screen out criminals. We could do that in the US but we don't (except for airlines). We could do that at the Mexican border without making it "Strong" in any sense of the word. And borders don't do too much to deter crime anyway, as we know from our experience with the War on Drugs.

3. I think you're conflating a bunch of different issues here. This isn't about a strong federal government. It's about why we think countries have rights or responsibilities or both to police their national borders heavily when nobody thinks they have either for policing movement across borders that aren't national.
 
superrific said:
Dual-filing isn't an essential aspect of a border. It's just a consequence of the way our state tax systems work.

I'm surprised that the "SC hires first" rule was legal. I'd have to review some law I haven't looked at in a while, but that surprises me. So anyway, why should that be the law? It's only of moderate relevance, but moderate is enough for discussion.
Click to expand...
The BMW thing, from what I read, was a condition of all the subsidies that SC gave them to win them moving there.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Well, you definitely have different levels of infrastructure when you go from one state to another. The roads definitely change when you go from Texas to Oklahoma. I don't remember which is worse but I do remember there being a significant difference.

That difference is minor when compared to going from Mexico to Texas. Our states all get funding from the federal government which levels things out to some extent although I would guess that whole paying taxes to the federal government then having them returned to the states is probably something that will be going away soon.

I think you have a point that once we destroy much of our federal government that states will start to look like different countries. Places like Mississippi will probably start to resemble third world countries - and that will be a leopard eating faces moment. But I would argue that if that gets too extreme, there will be more and more momentum towards states seceding.
Click to expand...
Who then will subsidize the red states? The blue states directly?
 
superrific said:
1. There is already free trade between Mexico and the U.S. Thus are Mexican workers already in economic competition with American workers. That has not brought Mexican living standards up to those of the U.S. Open borders would not change that -- after all, there's quite a range of prosperity between communities and states in the U.S. even without restrictions on travel.

2. I'm not talking about bringing Mexico under the jurisdiction of the United States, so I'm not sure how the cartel problem affects the question. In the EU, passports are required for travel. They are used to screen out criminals. We could do that in the US but we don't (except for airlines). We could do that at the Mexican border without making it "Strong" in any sense of the word. And borders don't do too much to deter crime anyway, as we know from our experience with the War on Drugs.

3. I think you're conflating a bunch of different issues here. This isn't about a strong federal government. It's about why we think countries have rights or responsibilities or both to police their national borders heavily when nobody thinks they have either for policing movement across borders that aren't national.
Click to expand...

I think a government overseeing the free movement area is absolutely relevant and the reason why movement between states is not problematic. Just my opinion but relevant to the question you asked.

Also as a practical matter the standards of living between the two is an issue. While there are poor states and rich states,the disparity in the US is insignificant compared to the disparity that exists between the US and Mexico.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I think a government overseeing the free movement area is absolutely relevant and the reason why movement between states is not problematic. Just my opinion but relevant to the question you asked.

Also as a practical matter the standards of living between the two is an issue. While there are poor states and rich states,the disparity in the US is insignificant compared to the disparity that exists between the US and Mexico.
Click to expand...
There's no government overseeing the EU (or a shell government). You've said that you don't know if the EU model is sustainable. I mean, I guess, but it's been sustainable so far.

Did you miss the question where I asked if your argument was free riding, property, or both? I asked because I wanted to better understand your position (and perhaps push you to better understand it).

Why is the disparity in standards of living relevant? I guess this question gets to your underlying theory of borders, which is also the point of the free riding question. It's not obvious that it's relevant. What makes you mention it?
 
Travel through the EU is (relatively) free to make touring/ism more palatable, no? You still need to pass through "borders" coming in from a non-EU country, as you do coming in to the US from a non-US state.
 
I guess one answer to your question was be that borders determine where a government's power starts/ends. Without a defining "line" there would be a lot of ambiguity, I would think.
 
stankeylegjones said:
Travel through the EU is (relatively) free to make touring/ism more palatable, no? You still need to pass through "borders" coming in from a non-EU country, as you do coming in to the US from a non-US state.
Click to expand...
It's not about tourism. It's about ensuring peace. Freedom of movement was one of the three animating principles of European integration dating back to the early 1950s. The goal was to de-emphasize national rivalries in favor of a pan-European identity, to defuse the nationalism that created world wars. The idea is that if a German person's neighbor is French and their co-workers English and their company trades extensively with Italy, that person is not going to be receptive to an exclusionary nationalist movement, and is certainly not going to want to go to war with France or Italy or anyone.

It's worked pretty well, I'd say. There has been very little conflict within the European Community since WWII, which is a marked reversal from its prior history, where there were wars every 20-25 years or so and constant rivalries and tensions.
 
stankeylegjones said:
I guess one answer to your question was be that borders determine where a government's power starts/ends. Without a defining "line" there would be a lot of ambiguity, I would think.
Click to expand...
But drawing a line is easy. We have no trouble determining where NC begins and VA ends. We have no trouble determining whether a crime is committed within the jurisdiction of NC or VA. The line is clear. It doesn't mean that the line has to be vigorously defended or be used to keep people in or out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top