• stevehobbes@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.

    The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There is a massive difference if you can practically establish who is allowed into and out of a country

      • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        So is the argument against technology that allows us to know who is who and records of who is a citizen of places?

        Like, they used to record that stuff too… it was just much harder?

        They would collect taxes and keep records?

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          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

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            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?

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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?

              • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                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?

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

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

                  • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    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?