(June 21, 2025 at 4:28 am)Charlie Boy Wrote: It has always struck me as morally indefensible that humans are tethered to birthplaces like outdated software to obsolete hardware. Surely, in an age of smartphones the very idea of borders is an embarrassment.
We must accelerate toward a world where all eight billion of us may reside, work, and vote wherever we feel most aligned. Imagine the beauty of walking into any country—say, Luxembourg—and immediately receiving voting rights, cultural authority, and perhaps a small artisanal grant to help with the transition. That, surely, is the mark of a just society.
The term "integration" is, when examined closely, nothing short of cultural violence. To ask someone to learn the language, adapt to local norms, or understand shared history is effectively to erase their uniqueness. Far better, I think, to let every subgroup operate entirely autonomously, preferably with its own legal code, currency, and education system.
In time, one might envision a single avenue accommodating a tapestry of micro-societies—each with its own customs, languages, and quiet rituals—coexisting harmoniously, bound not by shared norms but by a mutual agreement to refrain from interference.
There is a growing consensus among those of high moral character that immigration controls are an archaic remnant of colonial thinking. What is needed, urgently, is a coordinated effort to not only open borders—but to remove them entirely.
Maps, passports, and the concept of national citizenship must be relegated to the museum, somewhere between the guillotine and the rotary phone. In their place, we might adopt a global “Trust Bracelet” system, where each individual is given free movement based solely on the sincerity of their intentions.
If we believe people are good, we must act accordingly, and stop asking them such invasive questions as “What is your name?” or “Where are you from?”
Ummm, will gender be an issue?
I'm your huckleberry.
