i agree with ed's principle here.
i suspect the concept of borders is more about keeping people in than
keeping people out. keeping people out is just the more common consideration
at present. Europe, that most xenophobic of places, is now starting to mull
"importation" of people to make up for what it sees as a coming falloff in
population. they, of course, would like to control this immigration. we'll
see.
and ed's point is also pertinent to actual frontier areas: barring actual
walls (the old Berlin Wall) or military barriers (the Korean DMZ) or natural
blocks (oceans, mountains, big rivers), there are no lines painted on the
ground and borders are largely a matter agreed on paper. people in these
places tend to pay no attention whatsoever to the "border" and there is
little fretting about "immigration." (plus the trade opportunities are often
enticing)
etb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Edward Dodson
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 1:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why not develop them here?
>
>
> Ed Dodson with a comment...
>
> Ignoring the practical considerations for a moment, I offer the principle
> that because the earth is the birthright of all persons equally,
> we each have
> an unalienable right to migrate to any part of the earth we
> choose to. From
> this perspective, the concepts of the nation-state and of geo-political
> boundaries are difficult to defend on moral principle. That said, I fully
> acknowledge the many practical problems that would be associated with the
> free movement of people given existing socio-political arrangements and
> institutions.
>
>
