John opens the show by posing the following questions: shouldn’t everyone who is a citizen of this planet be able to move wherever they wish? What gives nations the right to control who can cross their borders? Ken is puzzled by John’s idea of planetary citizenship - people are citizens of nations, and nations have the right to control who crosses their borders. But John is not convinced, and wonders where and why nations acquired this right. Ken insists that without this right of nations, chaos would ensue, as mass immigration would occur, threatening the security and economic stability of various countries. Furthermore, Ken wonders why, if he works in this country, pays his taxes here, and obeys the laws, an arbitrary non-citizen should have the same rights as him. John insists that everyone who is born on Earth has the right to the planet’s bounty, and that there are individuals who may not be citizens of a country but contribute just as much and therefore deserve to have equal protection under the law. Ken concludes by recognizing that determining the rights and liberties of individuals by the arbitrary borders of nations is a complicated matter.
Ken and John are joined by Sarah Song, Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Berkeley and author of author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism. John first asks Sarah whether her interest in topics related to nations and borders arose from her personal experience, given that Sarah’s family immigrated to the United States from South Korea when she was six years old. She says it did, and explains her interest in the arbitrariness of being born in a particular place or other, to a richer or poorer family, and how strongly these factors determine our prospects in life. Sarah agrees that nations are formed through wars, ethnic cleansing, and other acts committed by dominant powers. Nations and borders are created through force and fraught, she says. However, this does not minimize the significance of national boundaries, as they allow for the provision of fundamental goods, including security and the opportunity for collective self-government.
Ken asks Sarah to comment on John’s view that the people of one nation should not have the right to control movement of other people into their country, to which Sarah says she believes John is moving too fast. We should instead ask the question of who has the right to control borders, and Sarah says she believes citizens should. John provides the example of individuals living in South Texas, bordering Mexico, as an example of an archaic, unnatural border. Still, Ken insists that a nation is more than a chunk of land, that it is more defined by people cooperating in that land, that there is an attachment or loyalty to nations that cannot merely be described by physical borders.
Questions regarding safety as a consideration when it comes to policing borders, the criteria for discussing nations currently under dispute, and the economic considerations of establishing borders are discussed when Ken and John invite audience participation. The show concludes with John at a crossroads between the two views.
- Roving Philosophical Reporter (Seek to 5:31): Philosophy Talk's Reporter Caitlin Esch talks to Sergio Garcia, who moved to the United States from Mexico at a young age. Garcia provides his personal story and explores the struggles of undocumented immigrants in the United States.
- 60-Second Philosopher (Seek to 49:15): Ian Shoales explores the necessity of establishing borders, looking at renowned examples of boundaries such as the Mason-Dixon line and the Oregon boundary dispute of 1844.
Harold G. Neuman
Thursday, March 3, 2022 -- 11:24 PMThere is a fragment of memory
There is a fragment of memory from long ago. The 1970s. And another country. I was living in Canada.
Introduced to an obscure faith, somewhere along that path I learned that the founder of Islam was credited with the concept of nationhood. He was, allegedly, a conquerer. So, borders did not mean much to the Prophet, who was interested in world domination and subjugation of all people o his cause and influence. It was a righteous twist on the conquerer syndrome: world domination, in the name of God. No Attilla or Khan, this one. He was a righteous man, who happened to want to have his way---bloodshed was a minor instance of collateral damage. It was a novel approach. And, effective.
Islam remains among the world's largest institutions to this day. And among the most staunchly authoritarian. To hear those believers tell it, everyone else is just an infidel. And, the nation of Islam is a moniker that endures.
Harold G. Neuman
Monday, March 7, 2022 -- 6:24 AMI suppose the current
I suppose the current European invasion has renewed interest in this topic. I won't dignify it by calling it a war. There is but one aggressor. Parts of the world are taking action, within the realm of the doable. Sanctions will make things unpleasant. They will not, with any likelihood, topple a dictator. I am not polite or politically correct because I need not be. It is regrettable that citizens in both countries will suffer. Such is the nature of things. The Russian leader had few friends before this. His associates are more like co-conspirators. There needs be greater creativity on the part of the free world, when dealing with this kind of aggression. I have a few ideas, though not for public consumption. Anyway, should any of those hold feasibility, I am pretty sure strategists and logistics people have considered them.
The ripple effects of this are only beginning. It is going to be a rough ride, citizens.
Harold G. Neuman
Tuesday, March 8, 2022 -- 5:38 AMRead a good piece on
Read a good piece on sanctions this morning, written by Robert Reich. It was shared by one of my expatriate friends. I expect it will get some traction in current affairs.