Comment: This is incredibly naive.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yes, I do (see in situ)

This is incredibly naive.

This is incredibly naive. People behave politically, act in groups, use force to achieve group objectives. That being the case, other groups have to use the same methods to defend themselves. If Israel had open borders, they would become a minority quickly. Even if the transition was entirely peaceful, the political consequence would then not be peaceful. If Japan opened its borders to the rest of Asia, the Japanese would be outnumbered in short order. That could occur entirely peacefully, but the political consequences would then be unavoidable, and we have every reason to assume would involve force and political methods. Wealth redistribution, land expropriation, change in laws and customs.

Nations control their membership to retain the customs of law, economic policies, mores and behavioral norms, etc., which they prefer. Your belief is frankly moronic and based on an imaginary conception of human nature. You limit your support of borders to individually owned property. If this is how a national behaved, it would basically mean any group that acted collectively could just trample over the rights and property of the people who acted solely as individuals. Only if everyone acted only as individuals would this work. If that was a realistic possibility of human behavior, I thin k we would have witnessed it somewhere by now. Yet we don't. Even the most liberal, pacifistic and peaceable countries maintain restrictions on entry to outsiders and have some level of military to secure themselves from attack.