this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
1195 points (96.1% liked)

Memes

44943 readers
2314 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They couldn't effectively police borders, so they didn't. Technology and population density influences the way the state works and whether they could do borders as they existed in the 20th century and exist in the 21st century.

The argument isn't against technology, it is saying borders as they are understood here are a relatively recent technology relying on other technologies

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But that’s the way borders were understood then too… it was just harder to determine who was who?

They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?

That is a complete anachronism, unless you actually were an invader. Have you actually researched this or are you just taking your assumptions and trying to apply them to history?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Go read some Greek history on the city states and ostracism, as well as the fact that it only worked because they had slaves and subjugated women?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exile as punishment for a crime and keeping slaves is distinct from having a border with border controls.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ostracism only required a vote, no crime, and no defense was allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

The penalty for returning was death.

Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.

Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Literally whether you can control human migration between territories.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But if you can throw people out, and kill them when they come back why is it that different?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Denying entry to random people is different than telling someone to leave?

Imagine the difference between a bar with a bouncer at the door and a bar without, and then apply that principle at a much larger scale.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.

There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

But it makes it much harder to control who is in a space, which means in practice there are additional liberties.