People are not born in countries.

[S..]

People are associated to countries after birth.

[Cheshire-Cat]

Realistically countries don't actually exist. We all live in one giant, global, fairy tale where we believe in lots of things that don't exist all together because it's the easiest way to get along.

[S..]

I mean that we associate to countries after we are born.

This is the opposite of the global trend, where everybody says they are born in a country and where they say that there is no choice in the matter.

 

Think about it: we are required to claim that we are born in a country or we are denied travel rights and we're thrown in prison if we attempt to travel freely:

regardless of how much money we have or how many people are aware that we are a safe traveler:

we are put in prison unless we say that we are born in a country and that country matches what's been "assigned."

[Solovei]

9 minutes ago, Cheshire-Cat said:

Realistically countries don't actually exist. We all live in one giant, global, fairy tale where we believe in lots of things that don't exist all together because it's the easiest way to get along.

Though some of the made-up things we believe in definitely have the opposite effect and actually make it harder for us to get along...

 

But I guess this all leads to tribal mentality and the need for a "them" to our "us"...

 

(I've been saying forever that I don't really feel closer or more loving of a bunch of people over other bunches of people just because we happened to have been born on the same patch of arbitrarily divided dirt.)

[kenny.]

1 minute ago, Solovei said:

(I've been saying forever that I don't really feel closer or more loving of a bunch of people over other bunches of people just because we happened to have been born on the same patch of arbitrarily divided dirt.)

i'd have to agree. countries can play a part in the division between people as well as giving humans a reason to try and connect with others from the same country. i personally was born in a foreign country, in which i am not a citizen, so in a way i feel further divided from those within that specific country. (if that makes enough sense...)

[scarletlatitude]

7 minutes ago, Solovei said:

(I've been saying forever that I don't really feel closer or more loving of a bunch of people over other bunches of people just because we happened to have been born on the same patch of arbitrarily divided dirt.)

 

I especially dislike when Americans say things about other people, like they had any choice in where they were born. I've traveled all over the world. Some people are awesome, and some people are not, no matter where you are. 

[S..]

But how can you say that you are born in a country? Even a foreign one?

Being born on a patch of dirt? How does that even make sense?

 

Citizenship, a service to one's country, comes naturally.

Your citizenship is not something that can held against you or kept from you:

It's your own service that you determine.

 

Whether or not others recognize your service is the issue.

 

Right now, people don't recognize each other unless they claim they are born in a country:

which isn't even something that's naturally possible, since all births are natural births that don't occur "inside of a label."

[firewallflower]

Countries: The social constructs of all social constructs.

[N8ty L3asT]

@scarletlatitude you’re thinking of my fellow ignorant citizens of the United States, if you lump Snao and CBC with us they might get quite peeved since their technically their Americans too   

[scarletlatitude]

2 minutes ago, N8LV3y said:

@scarletlatitude you’re thinking of my fellow ignorant citizens of the United States, if you lump Snao and CBC with us they might get quite peeved since their technically their Americans too   

I'm American too. I welcome snao and CBC to join our dumpster fire if they want.  But I think Canadians would prefer to stay in the "North Americans" category and not the "United States Americans" category.   Disclaimer - I do love being American but sometimes USA folks are ridiculous. 

[S..]

4 minutes ago, firewallflower said:

Countries: The social constructs of all social constructs.

Social constructs, like countries and their constructs, are fine.

However,  all countries requiring birthright and bloodline discrimination is an issue:

 

People have no means to exist in society unless their identifying documents state that they are "born in a country."

That person must represent the selected country: Language etc. or if they try to travel without doing so, they are put in prison.

 

This can never change unless people realize that they aren't born in countries.

[uhtred]

Without government, life would be pretty miserable. (see the Monty Python "what have the romans done for us" skit).   Countries are the largest organization of government.  I don't see them as a abstract social construct but as a very real organization with real power. 

 

Countries can choose to have wildly different laws  on vital issues like free speech, freedom or religion, women's rights etc. 

 

One could imagine a single world government, but I think a lot of people would be very unhappy when they discovered that their social / legal preferences were not in the majority. 

[S..]

11 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Without government ...

I'm not talking about removing any governments. I'm saying that nearly every single government, on every facet of the planet, currently requires people to be "born in countries" and there is no reason for this. There is absolutely no basis for forcing people to associate to a label for the fact that they were born.

 

Would you force a baby to identify as a murderer and then carry that through their whole lives, throwing them in prison later if they don't say that they are a murderer?

 

Right now, the governments require every single person to be born in countries or else they are denied travel and they are put into prison if they attempt to do so.

People are physically abducted from their homes and forced into foreign countries, because they must represent those "labels."

 

Every country is undergoing this crisis and nobody is talking about the fact that people aren't born in countries to begin with.

[SithLord]

This is what has always puzzled me about patriotism. Why am I expected to be loyal to a government I had no choice in? People keep saying, "If you don't love America (or other country), get out" like I had a choice in where I was born, or assuming I have the financial capabilities to leave. 

 

I understand loyalty out of familiarity and comfort and love. Like I love America because of it's abundance of foreign food and diverse population (at least in Cali where I'm from) and so many minor things. But holy hell does that not mean I have to love everyone in it, especially the government and oligarchs that control it. 

 

I find we're born into countries the same way we're born into gender or race. Society tells you that's what you are because society, so that's what you are.

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, S.. said:

I'm not talking about removing any governments. I'm saying that nearly every single government, on every facet of the planet, currently requires people to be "born in countries" and there is no reason for this. There is absolutely no basis for forcing people to associate to a label for the fact that they were born.

 

Would you force a baby to identify as a murderer and then carry that through their whole lives, throwing them in prison later if they don't say that they are a murderer?

 

Right now, the governments require every single person to be born in countries or else they are denied travel and they are put into prison if they attempt to do so.

People are physically abducted from their homes and forced into foreign countries, because they must represent those "labels."

 

Every country is undergoing this crisis and nobody is talking about the fact that people aren't born in countries to begin with.

Countries / governments need some method to decide who their citizens are.  Having that default to location of birth seems simpler than any alternatives I can think of.  

 

If a person is born in a country then they have a defined home and have to go through immigration to enter another country., but the have whatever support the country of their birth provides. If they are not a citizen of the country where they are born, then they are really stuck - possibly with no rights and no money. 

 

If people just get to choose their nationality, I choose Monaco. 

 

If you are suggesting open borders, do you think that would work in practice? 

[S..]

Open borders would be nice, since that's been the case of nations for a long time.

Hell, we used to be able to travel between the states in the United States without buses getting raided and people getting hauling people off.

However, I don't care about "open" borders.

 

There is no "decision" in who's a citizen when you state: Nobody is a natural born citizen. Everybody must be born in a country.

 

How is "Are you a citizen?" any different from "Are you born in a country?"

...

One is a choice : the other is not.

What happened to natural born citizens?

 

When did citizenship become an alien concept that people may only have if they swear there is no freedom.

[Gloomy]

The ancap in me wouldn't mind seeing governments abolished and country borders opened. My own property is the only place I'm concerned with keeping people off of.

[S..]

1 minute ago, Gloomy said:

The ancap in me wouldn't mind seeing governments abolished and country borders opened. My own property is the only place I'm concerned with keeping people off of.

Thanks for that: I have now learned the meaning of ancap, Chap.

 

However, as I stated, my concern is not with open borders:

It is with the fact that people are not born in countries, yet we are required by law to state that we are born in a country and that country, and our language, must match the predetermined nation or else we are thrown in jail if we try to travel. We are only recognized if we comply and our actual citizenship is not an option if it does not match.

 

This issue is that the mentality of "people are born in countries" has taken hold of the population and birthplace was added to passports...

while birthplace now also controls all inter-national identifying documents.

 

I'm fine with travel restrictions and safety protocols for travellers aiming to rent a space on a plane or boat,

as well as a documentation of how many people are coming and going and even which nations or cultures they claim to associate themselves to.

[SithLord]

58 minutes ago, S.. said:

There is no "decision" in who's a citizen when you state: Nobody is a natural born citizen. Everybody must be born in a country.

 

How is "Are you a citizen?" any different from "Are you born in a country?"

...

One is a choice : the other is not.

What happened to natural born citizens?

 

When did citizenship become an alien concept that people may only have if they swear there is no freedom.

I think you're over-simplifying different political climates. Some people can have duel citizenship, people born in America are automatically American citizens, but if I were to have a kid right here and now that kid would not be Japanese, they'd be American (I think there's something about being born to American citizens abroad, not sure, but they wouldn't be accepted as Japanese unless the father was). 

[S..]

5 minutes ago, SithGirl said:

I think you're over-simplifying different political climates. Some people can have duel citizenship, people born in America are automatically American citizens, but if I were to have a kid right here and now that kid would not be Japanese, they'd be American (I think there's something about being born to American citizens abroad, not sure, but they wouldn't be accepted as Japanese unless the father was). 

No, you're missing the point: People aren't born "in countries" to begin with;

we are born naturally and associated to countries after we are born.

 

If you were to have a kid right now, that kid would not be "American" or "Japanese."

You would then associate that label to them, even though they don't even understand language yet.

After that, you would associate everything related to your kid to that national label.

 

When the kid actually learns a language and understands what nations are,

then they would be faced with the choice of representing the label that you so strongly associated them to,

or being thrown in prison for not claiming to do so and attempting to be a part of society.

 

In most cases, it's not even the parent: You just go to a hospital somewhere and BOOM your kid now has a life-long threat of imprisonment unless they accept the hospital's national determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain Jay]

Huh. Funny that I'd see this thread. I've sometimes thought, semi-jokingly, that people put too much emphasis on the part of this mud ball that they happen to spawn on. We may look different and act different to varying degrees... but ultimately, being born on Earth is the main thing we all have in common.

 

On the other hand, there are various reasons why people have set up cities and countries, even if they're usually variations of "so they could say they did", "so they/their rulers could have something to rule over", or even "to get away from their government/neighbors". Not to mention that the "single world government" idea sounds like it would be chaos, in part because there are so many people.

 

(I want to say that it seems like something from a sci-fi novel at best, but then there are probably some shooting the idea down. I wouldn't know; I don't read much fiction.)

[S..]

But again, we're not talking about a one-world government or "wooo we're all earthlings."

 

This is about being forcefully associated to one of any governments without a choice and whether or not you actually speak their language or represent their culture in any way.

 

We aren't born in countries, so why are we forced to claim we represent a country according to birth under threat of imprisonment and non-existence.

Why aren't natural born citizens recognized anymore and why are we not allowed to develop an association to a government or national label without the threat?

[Captain Jay]

Hmm... looks like I'm falling behind. When I hit the submit button on that last post, I saw about five new ones appear out of nowhere.

 

I'm guessing that people are pushed to represent countries because governments tend to be run by the kinds of folks who like considering themselves important (ego-driven types if you will), and more people is one route to more influence.

 

At least, that's assuming that I'm reading that stuff about not "being born in countries" correctly. I'm not sure if I am, and I usually don't take mistakes well, so I'll just stop there for now.

[S..]

1 minute ago, Captain Jay said:

I'm guessing that people are pushed to represent countries because governments tend to be run by the kinds of folks who like considering themselves important (ego-driven types if you will), and more people is one route to more influence.

That would be fine, but if that were only the case, then travel restrictions would suffice.

 

However, people are associated to a country after they are born and then ALL countries push for that SPECIFIC country association,

regardless of the currently existing language or culture.

 

Say, for example, you only speak English, grew up in an English speaking nation, and only know that culture...

... you are associated to a foreign country according to birth and are then put into prison if you do not learn a FOREIGN language and represent a foreign country.

Your own country and the foreign country would both work to attempt to physically force you to abandon your own country and to represent a foreign one.

 

This is due to the "born in countries" mentality that has taken root of the general population:

Everything you know and everything you are is not "benefiting" the target country.

You are simply being killed nationally by the entire planet and are being told to "immigrate" into your own country if you ever want to see it again:

again under the force of having to accept a foreign "birth" country.

 

All this when people aren't born in countries to begin with; and for what?

How is this beneficial to any country or even to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SithLord]

I don't exactly find myself facing imprisonment, or even personal harm, in my dislike of the term "American". Actively saying I hate the country's history and government gets me glares at worst.

 

As I've stated before, my belief is that it's a title assigned to you that you choose to accept or reject, but one that will be applied no matter your say. Do I want to be American? Not sure. Am I American due to the circumstances of my birth and chldhood? Unfortunately. Can I just not be American tomorrow? Nope, it's impossible because of the way the label is applied. 

 

I'm actually not sure if it's possible to not be a citizen to any country. I know it's possible to renouce citizenship of one to join another, but not sure about just renouncing the one one has and not taking up another. 

[Sally]

It makes no sense to say that people aren't born into countries, they become residents of the country after they're born.  "After they're born" is literally one second after they come out of the womb.   

[Guest]

Unless you are born on/over international waters you are born in a country. That is a geographical fact, and I really don't understand how you could say it's not. Citizenship can be a little more complex, but most of the time if you are born in a country you are a citizen of that country. Patriotism is a completely different argument, acknowledging the fact that you were born in a country or are a citizen of a country doesn't mean that you buy into patriotism.

[S..]

A country a label and culture. You aren't born in a label and culture until you learn language and culture.

Those things happen naturally and not artifically or under force of association when you exit the womb.

 

7 hours ago, SithGirl said:

I don't exactly find myself facing imprisonment ...

I American due to the circumstances of my birth ...

I'm actually not sure if it's possible to not be a citizen to any country.

If you travel anywhere without stating that you were born in a country, you face imprisonment and physical abduction to be sent to the area labelled as America.

You are not magically American when you exit the womb: Your nationality and citizenship born naturally as you learn about America and make choices in it's favor.

Every single person is born naturally without citizenship to a country and is afterwards associated or labelled as a citizen of a country.

 

2 hours ago, Sally said:

It makes no sense to say that people aren't born into countries, they become residents of the country after they're born.  "After they're born" is literally one second after they come out of the womb.   

It makes no sense to say that people magically know what a country is and that they serve said label and culture according to the "alter of dirt" we labelled where they exited a womb over.

 

2 hours ago, CBC said:

.. we're born in countries and immediately become citizens ...

... conceptualising it any other way ...

It's not naturally possible for people to be born in countries, since we are born naturally and are associated to countries afterwards. Claiming that people are going to represent a designated label and culture, or otherwise be physically forced to be located in an area of the planet until they agree to promote the chosen national label and culture is conseptualising birth in an unnatural way.

[S..]

1 minute ago, CBC said:

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

I'm saying that society has gone mental and lost touch with the natural world: Birth is the creation of existence and society claims that birth happens physically when you exit the womb, but it also claims that birth is not physical and does not happen when you exit the womb: it claims that a country is the womb and that you are born inside of a womb while you are physically born.

 

That's not natural: Being born by definition of exiting a womb while being unborn by defintion of being inside of a mental womb.

That's mental.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, S.. said:

but it also claims that birth is not physical and does not happen when you exit the womb: it claims that a country is the womb and that you are born inside of a womb while you are physically born

 

That's not natural: Being born by definition of exiting a womb while being unborn by defintion of being inside of a mental womb.

Dude that doesn't even make sense. No one with a functioning brain has ever said that.