I think the real question about borders is permeability. You want borders because you want to select what crosses them. The state is like a living organism. Living organisms have cell membranes and cell walls. That’s one of their defining, necessary features. And there’s a selectivity that allows certain things in and certain things out, intelligently, based on what the needs and conditions are for life within that organism.
Having a purpose or logic to an organism, having a distinct nature, means a responsibility to maintain stewardship over that process. When a cell loses the integrity of its membrane, it ceases to exist. It is invaded from without and devoured, and its internal contents disperse in an uncontrolled manner into its surroundings. It ceases to be. It has no ability to maintain its biological distinctiveness.
Superorganisms like states are no different. You can argue to adjust the permeability of the membrane, that there is some useful nutrient in the surrounding environment and that it would be helpful to adjust the gating mechanisms to allow in. And cells have special internal structures that facilitate transport across the membrane. They don’t just allow things in by self-selection. They have mechanisms to restrict transport (passive and active), and they have mechanisms to facilitate transport. This is the pattern of life, and it applies across all levels of life.
So we should look to the nature of life for sense and learn to find balance. Borders are reasonable. In fact they’re necessary for life to exist. An absolutely impermeable border will keep everything out and everything in, but will bind and starve the cell. A completely permeable or non-existent border is useless and means the end of the organism. Somewhere in between lies selectivity, facility, purpose, growth, adaptation, and intelligence. If a single celled organism can figure it out, so can people.
Mr Nobody's Patented Blog 