posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 02:19 PM
They're just lines on a map so in a sense they are "paper" borders.
Some countries attempt to enforce lines on the ground but with little success and much bloodshed. In the end borders change.
Those that need walls can't accept change nor exchanges, their isolationists. I would submit that borders have nothing to do with real sovereignty.
Control over territory and resources is a factor, but more important is control over people.
When we have situations like the minutemen it goes to the heart of the meaning of principles like democracy, free will, and ligitimacy of power.
Democracy can be described as mob rule for the greater good. But what happens when the mob is wrong? or when it takes the law into it's own hands? or
goes against the greater good? And who defines the "greater good"?
Any group of people or any government can exercise their "free will" and justify it as "by the people, for the people", but is it really what "We
the people" want?
Where does legitimate power lie?
Originally posted by smirkley
Is it possible that the US government 'prefer' to support a 'paper' border?
As opposed to what?
What would be it's benefits, what would be it's purpose.
Philosophically, I can think of many benefits to having no lines on a map, but I can't think of any in having them physically manifested on the
I never understood the need for some to stay behind walls and locked doors to protect themselves from the world outside. Fear of change I guess.
The fact that we feel the need to have those borders says a lot about the culturally ingrained "us" v. "them" mentality (of which I am also a
victim), and the longer we succumb to that mentality the longer the underlying societal problems causing the need for "security" go unsolved.