• stevehobbes@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be “the zone of control of a government” and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.

        • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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
            ·
            11 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
              11 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
                ·
                edit-2
                11 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
                  ·
                  11 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
                    ·
                    11 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?

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today