It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We should rid ourselves of America...

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
World without borders...I like that.



Who drew up the borders in the first place anyhow???




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHypnoToad
 


well, that's basically the point. worldwide reform and pure freedom of movement. you can't really govern a whole planet with 6.5 billion people on it with a very centralized system. it'd just be a way for the world to be at peace, not like a really big country.

i also motion to rid the world of flags... i don't really see the point. a flag is the only time people care about the defacement of a piece of cloth... even more so than if that cloth had important writing on it.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by golddragnet
 


i think people with guns and flags drew up the borders



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


They are also the same people who defend our country.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Digital_Reality]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
If countries gave up borders then people must give up property rights. Want a house? Tough. Want to own a farm? Sorry can't.

Countries (and borders) are really just a natural extension of personal property and the inalienable rights we feel entitled to over the dirt for which we have worked our entire lives either on or for.

The problem with just getting rid of borders is that if a group of land-holding peoples decided to work together to ensure the borders of their collective lands they have just effectively formed a country. And there is nothing you can do about it short of invading them with your own collective of land-owning peoples. Then you are simply back where you started.

All these pie-in-the-sky ideas like socialist communes and border-less communities fail to work in the real world because they always ignore something fundamental about human beings. They ignore it because it is something we don't like to think about being great apes and all that.

Humans are the most successful creature on the planet for two reasons and intelligence is not one of them. For one, we are simply the most vicious animal in nature and this is easily seen in our history of genocide, slavery, and even the rape of the nature world. No life is too precious for humans, nothing is sacred, we will destroy mountains, and entire ecosystems - willingly and knowingly - for some more. More anything. More everything.

Which takes us to the second most important trait humans posses: greed. Thats right, its greed that helped us survive an ice-age and greed that kept us going through all those famines and plagues. Ultimately it is greed that shapes the very rules that govern our human societies today.

Humans will keep what they don't need on the off-chance that they may need it tomorrow. And no matter that YOU need it today. Thats not THEIR problem. Thats a little bit of both viciousness and greed at work. Yet, in a non-perfect world, that bit of "sorry better luck next time" might just save the greedy person's life if the crops failed, or the insects came, or an army pillaged.

That is the essence of our success, survival at all costs. Greed. Viciousness. If your system of living in communities doesn't adequately address these two primal survival mechanisms then ultimately it is doomed to fail.

You need borders and you need to have property rights that empower the people who live on that property. Which means you need countries to protect that property which means armies and everything else.

Humans are victims of our own evolutionary advantage.

Jon



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wow, you mean we are the only country to do this?

What a news flash.

Puleeeze.

I work for one of the richest counties in the US. Over half of the 500K(starting) plus homes are owned by foreigners.

So, what are these folks doing here soaking up the sunshine and not sending this money back for their bretheren.
I see a lot of people coming here to make some change that are not sharing the wealth either, and the come from every corner of the planet.

Fact is we are becoming a catchall for the unhappiness of everyone else.

My life sucks. I am not blaming China, India, or Mexico for taking all the jobs. Accept your own problems, and blame your leaders for failing you.
Just as I see legal and illegal foreigners coming here to get free education and not pay taxes for years when I can't get out of the bottom of the barrel.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Digital_Reality
 


the british?
because that's who i was referring to... most of the current borders were drawn up by the british

and defend us from who?
the last attack was something people with guns and flags couldn't stop, we needed an intelligence agency on that.
no country is insane enough to stage an actual invasion of the USA, we have enough nukes to wipe anyone off the map

reply to post by nixie_nox
 


read the posts. i said get rid of all the countries, not just the USA. every country opens up it's borders and everyone gets entitled to the best of each nation.
americans would see increases as well... healthcare, in particular.


Originally posted by Voxel
If countries gave up borders then people must give up property rights. Want a house? Tough. Want to own a farm? Sorry can't.


um... no... see, countries have given up their borders and merged with other nations without this happening.



Countries (and borders) are really just a natural extension of personal property and the inalienable rights we feel entitled to over the dirt for which we have worked our entire lives either on or for.


except that it isn't. it's about personal entitlement. it's a "i was born here, so i'm better than you, nanananana" kind of thing



The problem with just getting rid of borders is that if a group of land-holding peoples decided to work together to ensure the borders of their collective lands they have just effectively formed a country. And there is nothing you can do about it short of invading them with your own collective of land-owning peoples. Then you are simply back where you started.


no, they would have formed a city...
not a country.
again, i have nothing against a federalized system in which things are handled at local, state, regional, and continental levels below the government governing the whole world.



All these pie-in-the-sky ideas like socialist communes and border-less communities fail to work in the real world because they always ignore something fundamental about human beings. They ignore it because it is something we don't like to think about being great apes and all that.


and you're just labeling, i've clearly asserted capitalist ideas.... and my idea is nothing like those.



Humans are the most successful creature on the planet for two reasons and intelligence is not one of them.


really? because that's pretty much the biggest thing we have going for us...



For one, we are simply the most vicious animal in nature and this is easily seen in our history of genocide, slavery, and even the rape of the nature world.


most vicious animal? we're the only animal that gives parts of our bodies away to other members of our species
ants participate in genocide and rape of the natural world.
actually, ants are probably the most violent and vicious animals

we have things like compassion and those warm and fuzzy feelings



No life is too precious for humans, nothing is sacred, we will destroy mountains, and entire ecosystems - willingly and knowingly - for some more. More anything. More everything.


now you're just grouping everyone together, stereotyping 6.5 billion individuals.



Which takes us to the second most important trait humans posses: greed. Thats right, its greed that helped us survive an ice-age and greed that kept us going through all those famines and plagues. Ultimately it is greed that shapes the very rules that govern our human societies today.


or the intelligence to cope with them...
your point kind of fails epically, as it's not topical



Humans will keep what they don't need on the off-chance that they may need it tomorrow. And no matter that YOU need it today. Thats not THEIR problem. Thats a little bit of both viciousness and greed at work. Yet, in a non-perfect world, that bit of "sorry better luck next time" might just save the greedy person's life if the crops failed, or the insects came, or an army pillaged.


alright... but this has absolutely nothing to do with the point.



That is the essence of our success, survival at all costs. Greed. Viciousness. If your system of living in communities doesn't adequately address these two primal survival mechanisms then ultimately it is doomed to fail.


um...
my system isn't one of living in communities...

also, your view on human nature ignores about... all of it. i must point that out. you fail to recognize that we're a species that self sacrifices quite often.



You need borders and you need to have property rights that empower the people who live on that property. Which means you need countries to protect that property which means armies and everything else.


one big country can protect it...



Humans are victims of our own evolutionary advantage.


you're right, without intelligence we'd have a lower suicide rate.
we're OBVIOUSLY not the most vicious species
orangutan males rape every female they come across and you're going to say we're the most vicious?
ants commit genocide every day in numbers that we can't count
coyotes... well, if you've ever seen a coyote kill something, you'd know what i'm talking about



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


It's a bad idea personally, and already a number of posts have said why. So I won't go into further detail.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Until there is true equality and economic unity of the Globe, there will continue to be struggle.

No man should be limited to a Geographic lottery at birth, or limited by defacto to a government which is not of his choosing.

All mankind is created equal, and to each person, life, liberty, justice, and the persuit of happiness. That all men should be affored that right, if not under the banner of a one world nation, then under the nation of many united in a common good.

Peace


[edit on 4-1-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
it would be great to have the world open

where there is no borders

but i dont think that will ever happen

becuase of how people are

like religion skin color and that kind of thing



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


alright... you dislike the idea and can't provide reasoning, so you're just going to say that it's already been provided...
when it hasn't.

well, i've heard a few arguments against it that are valid... but none are definitive. they're just implications of what barriers exist to making it work, not why it wouldn't work at all.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I'm against any plan of wealth redistribution. This plan sounds more like- it's not fair that some people are better off than others. Life isn't fair. I believe in equal opportunity, not equal results. If you look at the rest of nature, you'll see some animals/insects/plants have it better than others, and those that do, will defend their resources. As has been mentioned before, a one world government won't protect individual rights, because it has no external threats from other countries. Competition is a good thing. Just like a monopoly in business is bad for the consumer. A monopoly in governmental power is bad for the citizen. This system still ignores human nature though. Nobody wants to bust their butt working for something to just give it away to somebody else who didn't contribute in the first place.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
I'm against any plan of wealth redistribution.


alright, then you should have absolutely no problem with my plan at all.



This plan sounds more like- it's not fair that some people are better off than others. Life isn't fair.


well, i think it's unfair that some people are better off than others due to geographic lottery and nothing more...



I believe in equal opportunity, not equal results.


equal opportunity is what this plan is about. the world currently doesn't have equal opportunity.



If you look at the rest of nature, you'll see some animals/insects/plants have it better than others, and those that do, will defend their resources. As has been mentioned before, a one world government won't protect individual rights, because it has no external threats from other countries.


there's no logic in that statement. show me the causation between an external threat and a protection of individual rights.
the soviet union had one HUGE external threat, it didn't protect individual rights at all. iraq had an external threat, yet not protection of individual rights.
where's your logic?



Competition is a good thing.


again, you must agree with my plan as it would create GLOBAL competition, instead of competition within privileged parts of the world for certain jobs and underprivileged parts of the world for others



Just like a monopoly in business is bad for the consumer. A monopoly in governmental power is bad for the citizen.


1: you lack a causual argument.
2: there isn't a monopoly of power involved in the system.



This system still ignores human nature though. Nobody wants to bust their butt working for something to just give it away to somebody else who didn't contribute in the first place.


do people on this forum lack basic reading skills?
i have absolutely no plans for wealth redistribution, it's about giving EVERYONE equal opportunity.

read the damn posts, people!



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Your plan is about equal opportunity through wealth(resource) redistribution. It's the same old liberal- "don't be selfish, give it to me"
argument. Your plan also completely ignores cultural differences. Someone from a nomadic culture isn't interested in a condo, or a college education. Charity should be a private endeavor, not a federalized program. Forced charity, is wealth redistribution. Another thing you're neglecting to bring up is this- while there are areas of the world(i.e deserts) where there isn't much for the inhabitants to make anything out of, most of the poverty in the world isn't due to a lack of resources. It's due to people not being able to get along and work together, because of cultural differences. If every country in the world had a free, democratic type of government(and by that I don't mean vote for so and so or you're gonna be macheted to death), then you'd see poverty below levels ever seen in the history of mankind. Even the poverty in the USA is somewhat as a result of a culture in many instances- the notion that getting an education and being a productive member of society is somehow a bad thing has hurt a lot of people, or that living on the government dole is a normal way of life. FDR and LBJ have kept more people down on the socio-economic ladder, than anything else in the history of the USA.

As for the monopoly analogy. Perhaps I should have used checks and balances instead with regards to governmental power. If there's only one government, where are the checks and balances, that other governments would provide? That one government could do anything without having to answer to another credible power in your scenario.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Your plan is about equal opportunity through wealth(resource) redistribution. It's the same old liberal- "don't be selfish, give it to me"
argument.


no, it isn't. it's the equal distribution of opportunity, not through redistribution but through creation (i've already stated this before)



Your plan also completely ignores cultural differences.


not really



Someone from a nomadic culture isn't interested in a condo, or a college education.


then they don't need to take up the opportunities for it



Charity should be a private endeavor, not a federalized program. Forced charity, is wealth redistribution.


again, not what i'm trying to support.



Another thing you're neglecting to bring up is this- while there are areas of the world(i.e deserts) where there isn't much for the inhabitants to make anything out of, most of the poverty in the world isn't due to a lack of resources.


it's actually about control of resources... nestle controls a vast amount of resources in south america... instead of the south americans.



It's due to people not being able to get along and work together, because of cultural differences.


ah, the old "blame the 3rd world" argument.
look at the origins of the cultural issues. the rwandan genocide happened because of the powder keg left due to classifications of the peoples that the belgians made.
not all the problems can be blamed on the people there.



If every country in the world had a free, democratic type of government(and by that I don't mean vote for so and so or you're gonna be macheted to death), then you'd see poverty below levels ever seen in the history of mankind.


i'm calling for global democracy...

however, show me the causation between democracy and prosperity.



Even the poverty in the USA is somewhat as a result of a culture in many instances- the notion that getting an education and being a productive member of society is somehow a bad thing has hurt a lot of people, or that living on the government dole is a normal way of life.


again, you're not attacking my point, you're building a strawman



FDR and LBJ have kept more people down on the socio-economic ladder, than anything else in the history of the USA.


except that the programs do have good ideas... such as investing in education in rural, underfunded areas that needed it



As for the monopoly analogy. Perhaps I should have used checks and balances instead with regards to governmental power. If there's only one government, where are the checks and balances, that other governments would provide?


again, other governments don't provide checks and balances. the USA swings it's phallic symbols of death all over the world with little check or balance.



That one government could do anything without having to answer to another credible power in your scenario.


the credible power would be the people. bigger government, more oversight.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
i'd like to just post some clarification points on here, as many people have misunderstood my ideas.

1: it wouldn't happen right away, we'd wait to equalize the world quite a bit before we would create this free society. this would be accomplished in several ways:
a: secularization. in nations that lack secular government, there is a lot of regressive, quite medieval behavior that prevents the nation from advancing, secularization with assured freedom of religion would help with advancement
b: education, education, education. for everyone. i think this one kind of speaks for itself, but i'd like to add that it would also help add to the women's rights movements in nations where women currently lack rights
3: healthcare. if people are alive and not dying from simple, preventable disease, they're a lot more likely to succeed
4... or d... i kind of stopped paying attention to the numeration and i'd rather not fix it: farming methods and food distribution. we'd improve production of food and distribution methods so that nobody would go to sleep hungry ever again. this is no pipe dream, it wouldn't actually be hard to do at all. an increase in nutrition leads to an increase in productivity and lifespan.

2: THIS ISN'T SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM OR AN NWO PLOT! seriously, not at all what i'm calling for.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
I believe in equal opportunity, not equal results.


Spoken as a man who has plenty. What about the impoverished mother who cannot feed her child while her countries oil is sold for Billions abroad.

Perhaps you would be singing a different song if you worked all day for a bowl of food or a dollar...


Originally posted by GT100FV
A monopoly in governmental power is bad for the citizen.


You live in America which is an assembly of United States. Is not the Government here a Monopoly over the people in some ways? Its a Monopoly that works for you, why not the rest of the world? United we Stand...Global.


Originally posted by GT100FV
Nobody wants to bust their butt working for something to just give it away to somebody else who didn't contribute in the first place.


American GIs do it every day. They put their life on the line for an obscure form of freedom and long term benefit for that which they may never personally see as they may give the ultimate sacrifrice. In addition, any parent of any family knows their giving to their family is done from the heart. There is no return when one takes care of those they love. The return is in the giving...

The message of Christ was the love of all mankind as a family. That in serving each other we serve him...and in so we serve the Father. While madness is a proclaimed Atheist, his heart is in the right spot, and I see his point and its spirit...

Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness is for all mankind, and not just America.

Peace

[edit on 11-1-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


it's great to finally see each other on the same side of the discussion for once.
you did bring up some great examples, and i guess i really don't have much to add to it.

there is one thing i'd like to point out: nobody has justified privilege by geographic lottery.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


I think you're misunderstanding my points. When I say equal opportunity not equal results, I mean nobody should be kept from having the opportunity to succeed, but.......the results should be based upon merit, not some arbirtrary government fiat. Then you have one person working hard and another sitting on their butt, but the results are the same. That's not fair either, if we're concerned with fairness.

The US doesn't have the monopoly of power in the world. If Europe, Russia, China, etc...stood up to us economically or otherwise, it would prevent us from doing whatever we darn well feel like doing. My point is that there are checks and balances when you have multiple governments, just like when you have the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches in the US government. No one branch has all the power. If there were only 1 government, there would be nothing to stop it from being the greatest tyranny ever known.

As a US soldier I understand the notion of sacrifice for others, but you again misunderstood what I was driving at. It is unjust to let one person work hard, and while another is enjoying the fruits of their labor through redistribution of wealth.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I would like to see a borderless world, but I would not support a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

What makes you think a federalized government would take into account any indigenous population's requests (or even our own).

I'd be down for an anarchic society, but not a federalized world government.

The potential for abuse would be so great its unimaginable. You think we have it bad now?

Imagine what a world government could do...Control all the resources and decide where you can go...What you can eat, etc etc.

Bad, bad, bad



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join