Hacker News Reader

If a state’s borders aren’t enforced, either those borders are not in fact the state’s real borders, or the people residing within those “borders” are living in a failed state.

View on HN

This logic isn't remotely sound. It's a ridiculous false dichotomy. There's a third option: It's a normal state that hasn't built walls around it like some kind of medieval walled cities. Do you think every state that isn't completely walled off (there are basically none besides the Vatican) is "failed"?

Who said anything about walls? A state’s borders are defined by the land area over which it upholds its own legal system. If a state’s legal system is unenforceable within its so called “borders”, then by definition those are either no longer its borders, or the people living within the land area over which the state’s legal system cannot be enforced are living in a failed state. The borders will have become disputed in that case.

I am not in favor of states.

And as I said before, the southern border is mostly made up. People crossed it for thousands of years without some crappy wall in the way. They will continue to cross it even with a wall.

> I am not in favor of states.

What are you in favor of, then?

Nature. Genetic diversity. Freedom.

A border wall is an ecological tragedy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com