Disputed Territories (Part II: The One Republic)

I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon [...]

Now Thrasymachus had many times tried to interrupt, and at last he burst out and said, "What is this nonsense, Socrates? How are we to protect ourselves without guardians at our borders? Should we allow aliens to enter our lands without restraint? What lawlessness! You wish for an ideal that cannot be translated into reality. I say that unless you provide answers to these complications, your speech is nothing but a waste of time."

I was staggered by his attack but managed to answer him: "Don't be so hard on us, Thrasymachus. If we had made any mistake in the course of our discussion, I assure you we have not done so on purpose. It's the ability that we lack, and clever chaps like you ought to feel sorry for us."

"I would much rather listen to you try and defend your arguments," he replied with a bitter laugh.

"I will try my best. But we must first agree to ignore possible anachronisms. Much has changed," I said.

"Agreed," agreed Thrasymachus. "Now explain how a nation's economy could be kept intact despite unrestricted immigration."

"Obviously, workers replaced by immigrants will be made worse off. Is anyone made better off?"

"Certainly. Employers would have a larger pool of applicants to hire from, and it follows that workers may work better and demand less wage," he said.

"Then immigrants can both harm and help a host nation," I said. "And it can be said that those who lost jobs deserved to do so, for that is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. It could also be said that the added competition and flexibility will likely improve the world's economy. And even if employers in areas suffering from brain drain are made worse off, the world economy as a whole will benefit. Thus despite the fact that our primary goal was justice, we will also receive material welfare."

"You are not wrong. But you still have not considered the fact that wage earners are supposed to pay taxes," replied Thrasymachus. "If immigrants, who have thus far paid taxes to their native states, cross over borders and receive benefits from the new host countries, what justice is there in such acts?"

"To answer that question, we must first discuss the forms of government. They have changed before, have they not? Then surely, they can change again. You are correct when you say that the current system of taxes and government do not fit well with a borderless world. But the benefits of erasing borders may be large enough for us to think of a monolithic government of our borderless world."

"You desire a one world government," he said. "A unified totalitarian state ruled by philosopher kings."

"I desire more goodness in the form of freedom and justice, which could only be gained by eradicating borders. There shall be an unparalleled freedom of movement. Place of birth, citizenship, and nationality will no longer be of significant importance. They will be justly replaced by character, merits, and ability—qualities of a person that are, unlike place of birth, neither arbitrary nor permanent, and thus developable."

"Again, you are speaking in riddles."

"Tell me, Thrasymachus, how do you identify yourself?" I asked.

"As an Athenian. A Greek."

"And why do you do so?"

"I was born in Athens. I live in Athens. I teach in Athens. I teach in Greek," he answered.

"So you are letting a location and its inhabitants define who you are? Can you still claim that you know thyself? Indeed, the unfortunate consequence of having drawn borders on the surface of our planet is that individual identities are shaped by arbitrary regions which we call nations. But it is these nationalistic affiliations that give rise to discrimination and place limits on self identities."

"You may be right in that sense. But how will your No-Border-Utopia deal with the increased dangers that follow unrestricted movement?"

"A criminal moving to a new location will make that area which he moves to more dangerous, but at the same time makes the area that which he comes from more safe. The total danger in the world does not increase," I answered.

"Aha! This is where you are wrong, Socrates! Some states are more densely populated than others, so criminals are far more dangerous in metropolitan cities than they are in rural areas."

"You speak the truth, Thrasymachus. But has it not occurred to you that presently, missiles can be fired from anywhere to anywhere? Would it not be more safe for us to place our criminals in densely populated areas, that more people can keep a closer eye on them? Nevertheless, I admit that your reasons for being concerned for safety are not unfounded. Perhaps we can address this by examining modern states. How does the modern preserve order and safety?"

"Through the police force and the judicial system, of course."

"Then is there a court that deals with issues that are not confided to one nation?"

"I believe there is," he said.

"And what if the police of one nation fail to capture a criminal before he escapes the jurisdiction?"

"Then there is the Interpol," answered Thrasymachus.

"A global police force and a global court system to preserve law and order in our borderless world. Can we not rely on these systems, and have everyone on this planet pay taxes to these institutions, so that everyone would be commonly protected by institutions that is supported by all?"

"Again, you are too simple minded! Do you not know that every country has a different set of laws? What is legal in one state can be illegal in another!"

"Forgive me, Thrasymachus, for my background is in Mathematics, not Law. But tell me, is an injustice always an injustice?"

"I do not understand what you mean."

"That is because you think that I am trying to trick you. I am simply asking if crimes depend on the location in which they are committed. Is justice dependent on location?"

"No, justice is the same."

"And we have also agreed that the form of government has changed before, and could change again?"

"Yes."

"Then would you not agree that a judicial system that is the same in all locations be better than the one we currently have, where a crime in one state may not be a crime in another?"

"Not yet, for I am still convinced that your ideas are too naïve. A single legal system cannot possibly deal with the diversity of cultural values. Imagine the riots that would follow. How big of a global police force will we need then?"

"You must be speaking of controversial issues, I presume? Of same sex marriage, of of cloning, and of wars?"

"Precisely," he answered.

"But what is the purpose of a legal system?"

"To protect the rights of the individual."

"And should the law have power in anything more than that, such as protecting a cultural, or a religious value?" I asked.

"I suppose not. A cultural value is essentially different from a natural law."

"Then perhaps most controversial issues have been answered," I replied. "Any issue that deals with a difference in cultural value should not be touched by the law. Only that value of limiting the law from having authority over cultural values should be upheld as a meta-law, a law of the law to be overseen by the philosopher king."

He agreed reluctantly.

"And so, the problem of immigrants (though there would no longer be such word) and security and order have been taken care of. On the other hand, what have we gained? We have gained a greater freedom of movement, better definitions of personal identity, a conveniently unified legal system, and, as desired when we first started out this discussion, a solution to all territorial disputes. My dear Thrasymachus, a borderless world could grant us all a good, good life."

"Well, it seems that you are not wrong. But we have talked for a long time. And lately, I've been-," Thrasymachus let out a yawn. "I've been losing sleep. So have a good time." And with that, Thrasymachus departed.