One of the many intriguing proposals I read about in Jim Rogers’ “Adventure Capitalist” is one that can be considered pretty radical: a world with no passports.
“The world has managed fine without passports for thousands of years,” he writes in his book. “The whole world should work that way.” He has two main arguments against their use: one, that governments just use passports and visas to control their population, and two, that it just doesn’t make economic sense to have so many thousands of people inefficiently sitting around at borders checking passports. He points to the success of the EU’s not requiring passports for citizens to travel within the zone, “anymore than you need a passport to get from Tennessee to Texas.”
As for his first argument, Rogers stakes out the classic libertarian ground: the government cannot tell you where you can and cannot go, and probably wouldn’t disagree with the idea that freedom of movement is a basic human right. Passports started becoming standard for the colonial British Empire centuries ago (presumably for security, though Rogers contends that they just didn’t want non-whites entering England).
I’m honestly a bit divided on both those points. I agree that visas are pointless and harmful economically (recall your own personal bureaucratic nightmare when you had to get one for your study abroad in undergrad?). Lately it seems they’re probably being used as a bargaining chip to reward friendlier nations by expanding the number of visas if they go our way. I agree that we’re losing out on brilliant inventors and entrepreneurs because of it.
On passports though, the fact is we live in the post 9/11 world. You probably don’t want unfettered freedom of movement for criminals, drug gangs, and terrorists. Maybe it’s because we’ve all grown up in a society where passports are a fact of life, so not having them seems crazy, but I don’t see them going away. Passports, but no visas.
If the world is going to be passport-less, it needs to happen slowly—start with the USA and Canada not requiring them, for instance. It can then gradually expand. It is similar to way Rogers would have begun the European Union if he was in charge (but that’s another post).
Should we roll the dice and risk it? Passports or no passports?
That's a retarded argument. The world also didn't have mass public transportation for thousands of years, let's not be stupid, Jim. Border protection is a necessary safety precaution, especially for developed countries. TSA nonsense aside, it more than pays for itself.
Passports/Visas are tools of government control vis-a-vis their own populations first and then to control immigration and thus another tool for government control over economic, social and cultural life. (this applies for all countries really).
In terms of movement of people, governments don't usually deny the economic and political elite of even the most belligerent of opposing states/countries access and free movement across borders, so I don't consider the "bargaining chip" argument a strong one although it could have merit.
There are benefits of having open borders, look at the EU and the movement between the various states of the USA and other zones that have less red tape. I think the driver will primarily be corporate need to expand markets/access to labour and government needs to extend their control as opposed to some libertarian or humanitarian dream of freedom of movement as a human right. I think it's the geopolitical and economic (i.e. corporate) factors that drive this not the desire for freedom of movement by populations. in my opinion you're not going to have more open borders between the USA and it's neighbours unless it means extending US government and corporate control/hegemony to and over it's neighbours.
It would be awesome to have people move more freely and to have increasingly open societies globally... the world is a beautiful place... the issue is, that this right won't be available to most people unless it is in the interest of their respective governments and corporations.
Anyway, Americans and Europeans can generally visit and live wherever they want in the world will few barriers, so it's not so much of an issue for Americans and Europeans with the financial ability or time to travel extensively.
Well, before 9/11 you could cross over into Canada with just a drivers license. So your not far off.
As with most libertarian ideas, I agree in principal but feel it would be impossible to implement... especially with the U.S. Let's face it, you just need one congressman to stand in front of the tv and say he doesn't trust XXXX country on security and that's it.
The funny thing is that there are more nutbags and security risk that are homegrown than are from other countries.
Do you know that there are dozens of millions of people dying from starvation and poverty around the world or in war zones ?
A world with no borders will just mean that everyone who can will come to Europe or North America...
Yeah, I mean, they'll get in their cars or private planes and come right on over.
A little common sense goes a long way.
No, they'll just pile onto cargo ships just like they're doing illegally now. There will also be a growth of agencies (that also exists today) that pretty much sell you into slavery - i.e. I'll provide you the transportation and you're indebted to me with your labor for the next x # of years.
Truth is, when you're dying of starvation and there's a country full of resources that don't have border control, you'll find a way to bring yourself physically there. In the long term things will even out (i.e. people will eat up all the resources in America and realize they need to explore new areas) but in the short run it's going to be very very chaotic.
OP: Are you suggesting that there are no more sovereign states? Or that the world's citizens should be able to move freely among the sovereign states? How would you determine laws (e.g. extradition, etc.)?
I think that since we've become so accustomed to the way things operate it would be hard to go cold turkey.
If anything I'd advocate for people to accumulate as many passports as possible to enjoy true physical freedom
passports for poor ppl only..thats how its atm and i dont see it going away
Libertarian beliefs keep getting more and more idiotic with each passing day.
Pot meet kettle.
Jim Rogers always amazes me with how weak his arguments are from a logic POV.
The fact that we did not have passports for thousand of years is irrelevant to the argument.
We also lived in caves dying at 15 for thousands of years, and lived of berries and raw meat for thousands of years, so?
I suggest you take a more charitable look at what he's suggesting. Most of the implementation difficulties people have brought up center around either 1) the welfare state; and/or 2) security considerations.
First, get rid of the welfare state. Problem solved- you won't attract any would-be freeloaders. Problem is, Americans are just as attached to their welfare programs as foreigners would love to join them. Last year, 49% of households received some kind of federal welfare (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-28/americans-hooked-on-government…). As for security, should we attempt something like this, we still have internal security measures. However, I am of the school that people don't detonate bombs attached to their bodies for the hell of it. Being a little less adventurous militarily will likely correlate with fewer people wanting to kill Americans- just a thought. Lastly, you are kidding yourself to think that the U.S. has border security today. It is abysmal. There are more than 10 million people in the U.S. who arrived simply by crossing a border- that's secure? Mr. Roger's idea suggests that we should view our country more as an economic zone, than a geopolitical entity with exclusive and inclusive interests. This proposal is the final realization of globalization- a world without border, without arbitrary boundaries that pit neighbor against neighbor over invisible lines- a world that doesn't elevate real estate over principles. But, yeah, that's crazy talk.
Re: welfare - none of the illegal immigrants today are on welfare, but that doesn't stop them from coming because the standard of living is so different. Even being homeless in the U.S. is a lot more comfortable in a lot of places around the world. Of course, most try to go in some sort of "black" business - from restaurants on the more harmless ends to drug dealing.
hahaha, I love that. "Even being homeless in the U.S. is a lot more comfortable in a lot of places around the world." That's quite possibly one of the most idiotic things I've ever read, followed nicely by your leading conclusion that all homeless are cheats and criminals.
I must say, its rather hard to get a job when you don't have a home.
Pull the silver spoon out of your ass.
There are two separate issues - 1) people would rather be homeless in the U.S. than in some third world country and 2) a lot of illegal immigrants engage in black market operations. Not sure how you got that my leading conclusion is all homeless are cheats and criminals. And while it wasn't my original point, it's quite easy to engage in those type of jobs when you don't have a home and are desperate.
It bores me to converse with someone as illogical as you.
Not trying to be antagonistic, but I don't think saying being homeless in the USA is better than being homeless in a 3rd world is that far off. If you're homeless in a state with a bottle deposit you already have a nice, tax free base income. Factor in charity and social hand outs and you aren't starving. I see homeless people all the time and they live better than Hatians do.
Wow, you make the homeless sound like ungrateful curs. What a great life, no tax, social handouts. In fact, shit, they don't even have to worry about house payments and college loans, the bastards. And bottle deposits, do you honestly think before your write? What good is tax free income if your living hand-to-mouth?
Really, you spend that much time with the homeless and Hatians that you can judge which has the better situation?
Ok whatever. No where in my statement did I make the homeless sound like they are living in paradise. If you cannot clearly see that the USA is a better place to be homeless, with churches, shelters, tax incentive to donate, social programs and stability with cities that have infrastructure, compared to Haiti which is hell reincarnate, I don't know what to say.
Get real. People die of starvation in tons of countries. I don't see or read about bums dying of starvation. The food we throw away is better than the food most of these 3rd world people eat.
Make it stop. Please. You're really too much.
No, now you have gotten me worked into a lather.
Given the choice, where would you rather be homeless? In the US or in (insert 3rd world country). C'mon man.
a lot of third world countries have universal healthcare... it would suck to be ill, homeless and in the USA.
What 3rd world country has universal care? Either way, the US has free healthcare for the poor and elderly, which would cover the homeless.
The effectiveness and how the systems are administered & funded varies from country to country. I'm not sure about India/China but I would imagine that their systems aren't as effective (especially India) as some of the other examples even if they profess to provide "universal healthcare".
It's odd. I've lived in Atlanta for nearly 2 years now and I see the same homeless people every few days either sleeping on a bench or working the same area for handouts. You would think if it was worse to be homeless here than in a third world country that they would have starved to death by now...especially when you consider kids with parents and a 'home' starve to death on the regular elsewhere around the world.
Regards
Consectetur voluptas repudiandae quidem suscipit aliquid. Corrupti ea sed provident qui non debitis voluptatibus. Ut iusto dicta eos delectus odit. Dicta suscipit et doloribus omnis tempora dignissimos ipsum.
Esse nemo non nihil. Totam a cum placeat sit ullam qui repellat. Voluptates delectus placeat deleniti voluptas qui provident. Enim aut officia nam ad libero.
Et tempora aut voluptatem molestiae nihil quaerat. Ex nobis debitis dolorem totam. Ex vel praesentium et molestias quaerat nemo sit. Maiores fugiat nesciunt ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Impedit eum magni provident quaerat. Nostrum aut dolorum velit tenetur. Ipsa dolores aut nemo reiciendis culpa quo qui sed. Perspiciatis officia iure impedit deserunt est quidem voluptas laboriosam. Ut aperiam maxime voluptatem. Earum exercitationem aut iure esse nulla unde. Aliquam unde aspernatur quidem.
Itaque est quia quis. Est aliquid aut incidunt sapiente quia ab quae. Accusamus dolores est est sapiente possimus quis.
Voluptates eaque possimus sint molestiae ducimus omnis dolores. Ipsa voluptatum eveniet in dolores minus ut. Enim et a tempora delectus ut quisquam.
Qui occaecati repellat qui ut. Natus asperiores voluptatem officia.