I would not describe myself as pacifist. But, if you examine them up close, my beliefs tend to get close enough as to make no practical difference.
This year, I’ve been thinking about these beliefs and trying to work my way through practical challenges they raise. Recently, this has led me to the topic of border negotiation.
It feels like vanity and naïvety to assume that the world’s current national borders are in their perfect state (especially since few nations can agree on what the current state actually is). To move forward toward a perfect world, there needs to be some form of negotiation to make the world better. So far, the only effective form of this negotiation that we have is war.
the role of nations
The first question many might ask is, if you want world peace, why have borders at all? What’s the role of nations in a peaceful world?
Interestingly, my view of this has come from online community moderation, specifically in the Fediverse. Fundamentally, I have two observations:
- “Free speech zones” online are not enjoyable to be a part of. They’re crucially important in a broader sense, but a completely unmoderated community space is one in which the loudest voices dominate and minorities are ignored.
- To solve this, moderation must be opinionated. The function of a code of conduct is to put policies in place to protect members of a community from harm within that community’s spaces, and different communities have different needs. Moderation must be tailored to fit those needs.
In a federated environment of opinionated community spaces, the overall effect is far closer to truly free and representative speech than a pure “free speech” zone. Each member of the broader community can select a sub-community that makes them feel the safest and still have discourse with members of other communities.
Now, before you overextend the metaphor, I’m not advocating for governments to remove free speech. Governments regulating speech is a severe conflict of interest. I’m merely using this model of a federated environment of moderated community spaces as an analogy for international politics.
Let’s envision a world full of nations, each of which fully provides all universal human rights. No, that is not the world we live in. But let’s imagine it, anyway.
Even with all universal human rights met, there are numerous areas where policy may still be divided, with different people having different beliefs that are exhibited in different laws and policies.
This is the role of nations: to provide compartmentalized areas of jurisdiction where different ideas on policy can be implemented, while fundamental human rights are still recognized and celebrated universally.
Remember, part of this model is the recognition that different people and communities have different needs. With a single world government, minorities within that world will inevitably have their needs inadequately represented. With that in mind, nations should not only exist, but also be self-interested.
Why self-interested? I’m loathe to admit it, but a network of nations that pay attention to their own needs before looking outward best serves the needs of the world at large. People need governments that are focused, first and foremost, on protecting their own interests.
I’m not finished, but let’s pause there on this branch of discussion.
addressing a misunderstanding
I have never understood the belief of many people that the needs of the citizens of their own nation are more important than the needs of people anywhere else in the world.
Yes, I want self-interested nations. But I don’t believe that having a nation that looks out first for your own interests implies in any way that it should believe those interests are more fundamentally important than the needs of other nations.
The self-interest of a nation purely exists to help it protect its residents from being taken advantage of by the self-interest of another nation. It’s in this balance that diplomacy thrives and that solutions can be found outside of the zero-sum game that selfishness puts into play.
Diplomacy is not a zero-sum game, and treating it like one is negligent and violates the rights of your fellow citizens of the world. Self-interest, in an ideal world, should be used a defensive tool, and not an offensive one.
With that out of the way, let’s keep moving.
immigration
Under my model of a network of nations where all human rights are filled but policy differs, I believe it’s vital that immigration between nations be equitable, affordable, accessible, and automatic.
Why? Because when policy differs to meet the needs of a community, it is inevitable that some people’s needs will not be met. Allowing immigration to a nation where policies match needs helps provide everyone with what they need.
No, I don’t know how to practically implement this, and no, the world we live in probably isn’t ready for this. But it’s a vision I believe in and work towards as best I can.
back to border negotiation
And so, we have come full circle. You’ve seen my vision of what I why I believe nations are necessary, what I wish they were like, and we’ve discussed that borders between those nations will need to be moved.
In a peaceful world, under this model, how can that be done? Self-interested governments are not likely to voluntarily give away land and resources. The “greater good” comes after the desires of the nation itself, and neither nation involved can judge the situation without bias. It’s distressingly zero-sum, and as I’ve said treating politics as a zero-sum game is where things start to go wrong.
This is where the idea of a self-interested nation starts to break down, and I’m not entirely sure how to patch my model world. There needs to be some other branch to the government that is not purely self-interested to balance things out and find the best solution.
I’m not sure what this balance should be, but my hunch is that it’s related to the role of self-interest as defensive, not offensive. Perhaps the self-interest of governments should somehow be limited to situations that cause harm to a nation’s residence and some other form of decision making should take place at other times.
conclusion
I don’t know how to solve this. Maybe my model is flawed. Maybe there’s some solution or model of diplomacy that I’m missing. I’d love to hear from you, whatever you think about these far-fetched ideas of mine. My contact information is below.
