Originally posted by Phlynx
Why would they want to make a country in the first place? If you can answer that question, I will answer yours.

1. Because they may object to the world constitution. If they were restricted by how they could live their lives under a catch-all document that they had absolutely no say on, then an obvious step would be for them to secede from the rest of the world, where they could make their own rules and not have to live under the constitution and rules of the ''man''.

2. They may share plenty in common with the other residents in their community, such as religion, political beliefs, language etc.
If this community suddenly became inundated with people who followed another religion or spoke another language, then they may want to put up borders to prevent the dilution of their own culture and customs.

3. They may want to put up borders to prevent the rampant drug trafficking, intake of criminals from all over the world and spreading of diseases that would ensue under a no borders policy.


This idea seems unworkable, because it is almost anarchy, but with rules and laws.

I don't see how you could prevent a criminal from a community in one continent easily flee to obscurity in another.
The only way you could prevent extreme lawlessness would be to have a huge worldwide police force and intelligence service with worldwide ID cards, databases and other such records to keep track of crime and criminals on a worldwide basis.

How would you prevent the sudden spread of a highly infectious disease if people could just waltz around the world without having to go through any kind of quarantine upon entering another ''country'' ?

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by Phlynx
Why would they want to make a country in the first place? If you can answer that question, I will answer yours.

1. Because they may object to the world constitution. If they were restricted by how they could live their lives under a catch-all document that they had absolutely no say on, then an obvious step would be for them to secede from the rest of the world, where they could make their own rules and not have to live under the constitution and rules of the ''man''.

2. They may share plenty in common with the other residents in their community, such as religion, political beliefs, language etc.
If this community suddenly became inundated with people who followed another religion or spoke another language, then they may want to put up borders to prevent the dilution of their own culture and customs.

3. They may want to put up borders to prevent the rampant drug trafficking, intake of criminals from all over the world and spreading of diseases that would ensue under a no borders policy.


This idea seems unworkable, because it is almost anarchy, but with rules and laws.

I don't see how you could prevent a criminal from a community in one continent easily flee to obscurity in another.
The only way you could prevent extreme lawlessness would be to have a huge worldwide police force and intelligence service with worldwide ID cards, databases and other such records to keep track of crime and criminals on a worldwide basis.

How would you prevent the sudden spread of a highly infectious disease if people could just waltz around the world without having to go through any kind of quarantine upon entering another ''country'' ?

1) It will be nearly identical to the constitution. It is a document to make sure freedoms aren't taken away, not a document to take away freedoms. We didn't agree to the constitution did we?

2) You cannot block someone from entering somewhere do to there religion.

3) There is rampant drug trafficking with or without borders. Diseases wouldn't be as much of as a problem, to to people being more spread out. Instead of people being congested in cities, where diseases spread, there will be more small towns due to smaller borders. Less population density = less diseases.


4) Finally, someone has caught on! It is Anarchism. Allowing local governments to be the decision making process with no central authority like a president or prime minister is Anarchism. Anarchism isn't the absence of laws, it is the absence of a central authority. Power is spread out like butter on bread. (I am not describing anarchy as in chaos, but Anarchy as in the political ideal of no central authority)


Think through your statements. They are pretty easy to think through and find out that these aren't large problems without borders. Think outside the box of "rational" thinking, and your statements will be answered through yourself.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Phlynx]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Phlynx]

Originally posted by Phlynx
1) It will be nearly identical to the constitution. It is a document to make sure freedoms aren't taken away, not a document to take away freedoms. We didn't agree to the constitution did we?

But not everybody around the world agrees with everything in the US constitution. You'd have all sorts of different concepts as to what a freedom would be from many people around the world. In many cases, there's an undefined line between one person's freedom and that freedom impinging upon somoene else.

Take the ''right to bear arms'', for example. What if you got a big enough group of people that wanted to live in a community without guns ? How would they be able to prevent people with guns moving in ?
As it stands now, if you don't agree with that amendment of the US constitution, then you have the option to emigrate to another country with strict gun controls. Where could you emigrate to if you disagreed with a rule in the world constitution ?

As far as I'm aware the US constitution is based on a Deistic notion of absolute natural laws.
Why would it be fair, for example, for nihilists to live under a constitution based on absolute concepts that they don't believe exist ?

And this is the problem that I see; the entire world would have to live under an arbitrary document that one group of people feel is correct.
Any enforcement would be totalitarian.

Originally posted by Phlynx
2) You cannot block someone from entering somewhere do to there religion.

Again, though, is that correct to not allow that ?
Is there any harm in a group of Amish people wanting to live in their own community without other people who don't share their beliefs streaming in ?
Why can't a group of people form a theocracy if they so wish ?

And what would be the status of all the protected indigenous groups on the Americas, Australasia, Africa and Asia ?
As far as I can see they are given their own communities to make up for the forced Westernisation of their land by invading colonisers.
If there are no borders, then they'll have no choice but to be forced to Westernise once more as people from other cultures come flooding in. Is this fair ?

Originally posted by PhlynxInstead of people being congested in cities, where diseases spread, there will be more small towns due to smaller borders. Less population density = less diseases.

Lots of people like living in big cities. I can't see how cities such as London, Paris, New York etc. will be any less desirable to live in to the tens of millions of people that would flock to them.
People would take any house they could get as there would be hundreds of millions of people moving from poorer countries to more affluent ones.
That would spread all sorts of diseases around the world in a matter of months.

Originally posted by Phlynx4) Finally, someone has caught on! It is Anarchism. Allowing local governments to be the decision making process with no central authority like a president or prime minister is Anarchism. Anarchism isn't the absence of laws, it is the absence of a central authority. Power is spread out like butter on bread. (I am not describing anarchy as in chaos, but Anarchy as in the political ideal of no central authority)

If there's no central control, then who'd enforce the constitution if a community opted to secede ?
Who'd run the essential services such as hospitals ?

Originally posted by PhlynxThink through your questions. They are pretty easy to think through and find out that these aren't large problems without borders. Think outside the box of "rational" thinking, and your questions will be answered through yourself.

I'm sympathetic to the ideals that you are professing.
But sadly, realism gets the better of idealism. The idea goes against human nature and our evolution.


[edit on 28-4-2010 by Conspiracy Chicks fan !]

There would be no football World Cup, or Test Match Cricket or Ryder Cup etc, etc.

No, think it would be a bad thing if we lost all of them.

Originally posted by Freeborn
There would be no football World Cup, or Test Match Cricket or Ryder Cup etc, etc.

No, think it would be a bad thing if we lost all of them.

I never said anything about cities being gotten rid of. There would still be the city teams.

Originally posted by Freeborn
There would be no football World Cup, or Test Match Cricket or Ryder Cup etc, etc.

No, think it would be a bad thing if we lost all of them.

There's no need to worry. By the time this scheme came to fruition, we'd be able to play interplanetary Test cricket against the greys.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Now there's a thought; imagine Grey's trying to master the vagaries of reverse swing or a Nordic coping with a googly and can you imagine having tea with a reptilian???

It would certainly be interesting to see where the Grey attached his protective box. It would answer one of the big questions I have about Greys.

Phlynx, I long for the same world you envision. Always have, and will die someday longing for it and not seeing it, sadly. I don't stop there, though. I want to see the elimination of currency and poverty the world over. I want to see the end of all armed conflict on the planet. I want Star Trek, essentially.

In my opinion the real problem is deeper than just borders however, and will take many hundreds if not thousands of years more for humanity to overcome if we ever do. In my view the problem is threefold: 1) the concept of value and property, 2) unempathetic greed, and 3) the belief that individual heritage and culture are mutually exclusive with a collective heritage and culture.

As to #1: In my view what we're dreaming of would only be possible through the elimination of currency and a letting go of the concept of "this is mine." (If everyone had everything they could ever need or want, why would it matter whether it was theirs or was provided for them collectively?) The only ways to do this that I can currently conceive of would be to either a: discover some form of zero point energy eliminating the need for resource conservation or rationing altogether, or b: to create a system of fractional value relative to the whole of the Earth's total sum resources (which would be 100% in that equation.) In such a system, everything would cost a number of credits (having no tangible, physical form) representing the fraction of that 100% of global resources that those given goods consumed. A high social minimum would be established for all human beings on the planet, and everyone would be provided sufficient credits to live comfortably. People would have roofs over their heads, educations, food, health care, and would actually be at a living standard virtually tantamount to luxury, but people could no longer have multi-million dollar mansions, personal yachts, etc. In other words, those who presently have the most property and consume the most resources would have to give up some things for the good of the rest of humanity. Which brings me to...

#2, unempathetic greed: The concept that if you work hard enough, are smart enough, lucky enough, or crafty enough, you are entitled to as much wealth as you can possibly acquire would have to go in my opinion. The collective good would have to more thoroughly and genuinely be balanced with individual desires and happiness. For many in this world, having housing, food, health, entertainment, art, and freedom bordering on the edge of luxury are not sufficient. Those people would be extremely displeased with such a system.

As to #3: There are many, many people in the world who believe that their national, cultural, religious, ethnic, or historical uniqueness and sovereignty take precedence over our shared human cultural, historical, and evolutionary heritage. I respectfully disagree with those individuals. I also do not believe that the two need be mutually exclusive. I do not believe that the world must all speak exclusively one language, have only one type of local community, have only one religion, etc. in order to be unified. I also do not believe that the unification of the Earth's human population must by its very nature be somehow nefarious, evil, dangerous, or driven by a hidden agenda. Which also leads me to agree with Phlynx that a shared, universal agreement to live in peace and perhaps a system with shared goals does not require a centralized global government. It simply requires universal agreement on an individual basis (but this is also why it is so unlikely, sadly) and still allows for individual and unique local communities.

Now, with all of that said, I do not want to see our current leaders, institutions, policies, orders (both transparent and secret,) corporations, and rulers be the ones in control of such a future system, as I feel they have amply demonstrated their desire for power, their capacity for deceit, and their disregard for human life. This is the main reason that I, sadly, believe it will take us hundreds if not thousands of years to achieve anything even remotely resembling what I'm describing, and why I do not believe that their efforts to establish a globalist agenda are the same as what Phlynx wants to see or what I want to see. They may look similar and sound similar, but I cannot trust them to bring about the utopia I dream of based on the means they have shown themselves willing to employ.

I wish to reiterate as I always do that I have nothing but the utmost respect for the views of those who disagree with me entirely on any or all of the above points. I understand your disagreements and your arguments. This is just how I feel and I'm just one more person contributing an opinion to the topic at hand.