Mapping the world's opinions

About us Style guide Log in  |  Sign up

Opinion map

History
International Relations
Politics
Millions of people risk their lives trying to cross borders into other countries. Some are fleeing violence and persecution, others are looking for better economical opportunities or to be reunited with family members. But is a world without borders a good idea, if it is even feasible?

Positions

Arguments supporting this position

Details

Context

Wealth and culture are not the only things worth protecting by controlling borders. Any human investment that has resulted in some tangible creation that is then desired by other humans (or non-humans) will need to be protected. This results from base drives that affect behaviors. Some of these drives are directly related to physical survival, hunger, thirst, cold, etc. and others are emotional, greed, lust, laziness, etc. For a stable society to exist, the physical needs must be met, and the anti-social emotional drives need to be managed. Culture is one factor that contributes to this control. Wealth and culture are both examples of tangible creations that require an investment to create, and therefore induce a desire to protect. Analogizing ones home helps to make the argument for borders more tangible. We all understand that our homes are places that are created, and require a continued investment to maintain, both emotional and physical. We all know either from direct or indirect experience that not all people will respect the investment you have made, and given the opportunity, will take it, thereby enjoying the benefit of your investment without the effort of creating it themselves. So we make a law, and invest in a police force to enforce the law, and execute consequences for breaking the law, all in order to discourage people from following our innate human drive to maximize gain while minimizing effort, which is at least partially driven by greed, lust, laziness, etc. The severity of the consequences are driven, at least in part, by what the culture, rather than individuals, values most. The fences and the doors are reminders that there is a law, and there are consequences for breaking the law. All this because our homes have something of value that we want to protect, in the same way a country has something it wants to protect.

The Argument

Enter the main explanation of the argument here ...

Counter arguments

Enter the counter arguments here ...

Premises

Borders around a country are analogous to doors on your home. Your home is something that you have created and has value to you. You don't let just anybody that shows up at your door into your home.

Rejecting the premises

Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...

References

Content references here ...

Proponents

Your take

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Next step

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Sunday, 7 Apr 2019 at 18:46 UTC