Imagine that Lauren Southern is right, and a white genocide is imminent in Africa.
Imagine also that Lauren Southern's political utopia were enacted, and all Nation-States enforced strict closed borders.
The result?
The victims of genocide are trapped in an area they desperately need to exit.
National Borders serve to trap individuals within territories, exacerbating war casualties as well as victims of genocide.
This was true of the Holocaust, the Soviet purge, and virtually every other mass slaughter that has ever been committed.
People who desperately need to move to a different area, are blocked from doing so.
Poor people are trapped by national borders in areas that are not economically rational to remain in.
Nation-States sometimes send humanitarian assistance to these areas, but poor people may not need humanitarian assistance if they are simply allowed to move to geographical areas where their poverty would be alleviated or eliminated through labor and enterprise.
The Utilitarian Principle is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But within Nation-States, this principle is limited to those who live within the geographical territory of the nation-state.
American University Students shout obscenities at The 1% without realizing that they, even as the poorest in America, are The Top 1% by the world's standards, and yet they, just like the wealthy elite they hate so much, are neglecting to share their wealth with the other 99% of the world.
Why?
The plight and suffering of people elsewhere is somehow ignorable because we are separated by national borders.
Supporters of “universal” health coverage actually mean "national" health coverage for citizens of advanced industrial states, excluding non-citizens.
Supporters of a "universal" basic income actually mean a "national" basic income for citizens of government with a territorial monopoly over a specific geographical area.
The alternative is called Panarchy.
The idea is to make governments non-territorial and allow people to voluntarily choose whatever government they want by actually signing an explicit social contract they voluntarily agree to, rather than implicitly signing a monopolistic social contract by remaining in a geographical area.
This solves many problems at once, but most relevant to this article is that it addresses one of the main arguments for politically blocking migration.
Many argue that migrants will make demands on the welfare system that as a monopoly it could not supply, causing a decline in the quality of public services for all, so we must enforce national borders.
Panarchy can eliminate such fears because geographical migrants are not political migrants, so domicile does not affect access to welfare.
Many also argue that migrants will disrupt the function of their government and their culture, but Panarchy allows migrants to maintain their own government and their own culture without interfering with anyone else's.
If a migrant would like to live under Sharia Law, they have that option available to them. Everyone is free to choose the government they want, but not to force their choice onto others.
Under the present conditions a government exists only by the exclusion of all the others, and one party can rule only after smashing its opponents; a majority is always harassed by a minority which is impatient to govern. Under such conditions it is quite inevitable that the parties hate each other and live, if not at war, at least in a state of armed peace. Who is surprised to see that minorities intrigue and agitate, and that governments put down by force any aspiration to a different political form which would be similarly exclusive? So society ends up composed of ambitious resentful men, waiting for vengeance, and ambitious power-sated men, sitting complacently on the edge of a precipice. Erroneous principles never bring about just consequences, and coercion never leads to right or truth.
Then imagine that all compulsion ceases; that every adult citizen is, and remains, free to select from among the possible offered governments the one which conforms to his will and satisfies his personal needs; free not only on the day following some bloody revolution, but always, everywhere, free to select, but not to force his choice on others. At that point all disorder comes to an end, all fruitless struggle becomes impossible. - Paul-Emile de Puydt
For more information, I encourage you to check out: http://unserezeit.eu/2017/08/14/panarchy-the-state-2-0/
