Just because it happened in the past doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. Actually, the appeal to nature “argument” against borders does, IMO, provide evidence that the conclusion (borders are evil and should be dispensed with) holds, but it is not an argument in itself.
IMO a better argument is the reality of the misery and oppression that borders create: they cage humanity and the ecology and thus limit our potential, and they only serve to benefit the local capitalists, and proletarians pay the price in blood and tears for those who try to assert their right to move. And then to this, we append the positive examples from nature as empirical evidence that suggests the conclusion, with the caveat that just because something is natural does not mean it is optimal or good.
Just because it happened in the past doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. Actually, the appeal to nature “argument” against borders does, IMO, provide evidence that the conclusion (borders are evil and should be dispensed with) holds, but it is not an argument in itself.
IMO a better argument is the reality of the misery and oppression that borders create: they cage humanity and the ecology and thus limit our potential, and they only serve to benefit the local capitalists, and proletarians pay the price in blood and tears for those who try to assert their right to move. And then to this, we append the positive examples from nature as empirical evidence that suggests the conclusion, with the caveat that just because something is natural does not mean it is optimal or good.