Imagine there's no countries - It isn't hard to do

reply to post by muzzleflash


I just don't see people ever eliminating the geographics associated with culture. It just doesn't seem right. So much history, and so many plants and animals that can only live in certain areas naturally - even if every country became as mixed as America and England, it's hard to ever eliminate the specific associations that belong to those areas - which make up such a large part of the culture anyway.

Originally posted by ReelView

The world is brainwashed to feel good irregardless of the realities around them and the NWO are motivating people to do that, for now.

I am 100% against the NWO plans as well.

World unification is inevitable though.

We just have to make sure that the "elites" never get to have power over it because they will corrupt it and turn it into a "World Government".

When in reality what we need is local citizen leadership/governance. (Through voting)

Civil Liberties must be protected at all costs.

Screw the totalitarian NWO; I am in favor of a pro-liberty FWO (Free World Order).

Originally posted by juveous

and so many plants and animals that can only live in certain areas naturally -

That is Ecosystem or Ecology.

Totally different than borders and nation-states.

I think you are confused.

Animals and plants certainly do not see "borders".

reply to post by muzzleflash


Borders are a necessary component in any aspect of civilization. Okay, maybe in a hundred years of EXCELLENT forward thinking, borders could be removed.

Here is the thing, by your own admonitions of drugs as a problem, you are not seeing the big picture.

Nothing can be abolished in this utopia you seek. Unless it hurts another or infringes on their rights, nothing should be banned.

People that speak of disavowing borders in this day and age do not really mean it. They want borders, just not geographical ones. They want to remove those to implement their other borders. Just like the ones you mention.

Freedom does not begin by destroying borders, it begins by respecting them. In all aspects of individuality. I respect your choices, do you respect mine?

I am not singling you out in this comment, I am using you as an example in my verbiage. I hope you do not mind.

I agree with this Utopian concept, but of course, human nature what it is, I will not live to see it happen.

Our Earth was created without borders. Why does man have this need to draw lines in the ground?

A border free world is the way it should be.

reply to post by webpirate


What does that mean exactly, "to live as one"? Please give me a description of what that looks like in a practical sense. How does my world change if we're all living as one? How does the tribesman in Africa's life change if he's "living as one" with me?

This whole business is jibberish

Deny Ignorance

reply to post by Phlynx


You do know Lennon wrote that song after reading The Communist Manifesto.

Even he says it was his inspiration.

You may wish to live(at least in your mind)with the perfect fantasy world but it will never happen.

There is this one social order that strangely is a worldwide way of life.

It is the unity of tribes.

Modern governments and societies can not control them.

I am not talking about cowboys and indians,I am speaking of those on every continent and with different names.

Most of the worlds present problems is because conquers divided up areas not along tribal habitats but by geography.

It was not their land to divide up to begin with.

The problem in the world today is BECAUSE people are moving from their races traditional habitats into other races traditional habitats and bringing their cultures where it is not meant to be.

That is not a racist statement, races are where their natural habitats are at for a reason.

All living things and species of,are where they are native to because nature dictates that is where they are suppose to be.

Not man,but nature.

Is it any wonder with the different races moving to others habitat and transplanting species of plants and animals insects etc.from one habitat to another,that we have seen an increase in the disharmony on the earth?

Not with just political/racial strife but weather problems, with introduced,evasive plants,animals and insects.

There is no long a natural order on the earth,there is only disorder.

You want a perfect world where all things live in harmony?Put everything back where it belongs and you will have earth in a balance and peace on earth.

Not until then.

Deny Ignorance

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Oneolddude]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Oneolddude]

Originally posted by endisnighe

I am not singling you out in this comment, I am using you as an example in my verbiage. I hope you do not mind.

No thats fine hehe.

I agree though, it would take 100+years to work towards such a system.

Your points are very well made. GJ.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Then I think you missed my point. - I was referring to what makes up culture - which tied into what dolphinfan was speaking about a boring world. Do you not think the ecological differences of countries affect the development of its social and economic uniqueness?
my point reflected how it would be hard to eliminate the border idea - maybe you can physically get rid of the boarders between nations and states but not the idea of that border.

reply to post by Phlynx


Well, I will say this for you, you sure have a set of steel testes.

Surely you cannot believe in this rather simplistic and alleged altrusitc Utopia?

There is no such thing as Utopia and as for free trade and all that rubbish, there needs to be some sort and or semblence of order, or else it is complete anarchy.

While I do not want bureaucrats in Washington D.C. pushing more bureaucracy down any American citizens throat, as far as I am concerned, Socialism is a diseased mindset as it holds no water whatsoever, it is a farce.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Socialism

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources with egalitarian distribution.

A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.

Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.

This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential, and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Many socialists, from Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of early socialism (Utopian Socialism), to Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, advocated for the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production.

They reasoned that this would allow for economic output (or surplus value) and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this can be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other.

A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established.

Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production.

Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, have instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).

Modern social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise.

(In the 19th and early 20th century the term was used to refer to those who wanted to completely replace capitalism with socialism through reform.)

Modern social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets; many, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, despite holding pro-capitalist viewpoints, thus adding ambiguity to the meaning of the term "socialist".

Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society.

The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society.

Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), the first individual to coin the term socialisme, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning.

The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organisation, and many contemporary socialists share this same belief.

Early socialist thinkers tended to favour an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

The biggest problem with it, is not only is it easily sold, as a cover for corruption, it is as well easily toppled via a coup from within by anyone and everyone who knows all of its weaknesses, and two books comes to mind.

Animal Farm and 1984

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02156645499d.jpg[/atsimg]

Amazon Review :

ANIMAL FARM

George Orwell's classic satire of the Russian Revolution is an intimate part of our contemporary culture.

It is the account of the bold struggle, initiated by the animals, that transforms Mr. Jones's Manor Farm into Animal Farm--a wholly democratic society built on the credo that All Animals Are Created Equal.

Out of their cleverness, the pigs Napoleon, Squealer, and Snowball emerge as leaders of the new community in a subtle evolution that proves disastrous.

The climax is the brutal betrayal of the faithful horse Boxer, when totalitarian rule is reestablished with the bloodstained postscript to the founding slogan:

But some Animals Are More Equal Than Others. . . .

1984

In 1984, London is a grim city where Big Brother is always watching you and the Thought Police can practically read your mind.

Winston is a man in grave danger for the simple reason that his memory still functions.

Drawn into a forbidden love affair, Winston finds the courage to join a secret revolutionary organization called The Brotherhood, dedicated to the destruction of the Party.

Together with his beloved Julia, he hazards his life in a deadly match against the powers that be.

Animal Farm Trailer


I spent that last week speaking to a self-proclaimed "Socialist", off of ATS, and all I saw from this man, was someone who wanted exactly what Napoleon and Snowball wanted.

Complete and ruthless control and to silence opposition to his viewpoints.

This man had invited me over to his Facebook page, and I could not get over how much the man mimiced not only Fidel Castro, but Che Guevara, and Hugo Chavez.

Needless to say, within three days, he actually un-friended me, because I was not a willing puppet, and did not agree with his every single sadistic word.

We need borders, national, and otherwise, what we do not need, is corrupt bureaucrats abusing those borders, as a political weapon to scaremonger citizens, nor do we need corrupt bureaucrats forcing the bio-chip programs through Verichip, Digital Angel, and animal tracking Destron Fearing, which is what lowering our borders would require through electronic tracking of every human being, like an animal.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/338cc3d8b0fa.jpg[/atsimg]

What your proposing, through your limited original post, is very eerily similar to what is already in the works, called the North American Union.

Quote from : Wikipedia : North American Union

The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical economic union, in some instances also a political union, of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

It is loosely based on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the Amero or the North American Dollar.

While the idea for some form of union has been discussed or proposed in academic, business and political circles for many decades, government officials from all three nations say there are no plans to create such a union and no agreement to do so has been signed.

The formation of a North American Union has been the subject of various conspiracy theories.

The Dangers of the North American Union by Jerome Corsi -- NAU SPP NWO NAFTA


Flame you?

No, I would not do that.

I would sure give you zero doubt that I oppose anything and everything you have to say.

We have enough issues with corruption in Government.

What America needs is stronger borders and strong delineations of separation.

Up to and including pulling out of the United Nations altogether.

Because that farce of duplicitous nonsense will not only assist in the complete collapse of America, as a nation, it will rob us our individuality as a nation through the semblence of the lies of "Unity Through Freedom".

Which is nothing less than programmed indoctrination into accepting a One World Government.

Those politicians in the United Nations sit up in their "Ivory Tower" planning on how to erase national boundaries through forcing more inept and outdated bureaucracy, in order to choke off freedom, and unite the world under one currency, one government, and one dictator.

For anyone who does not realize it, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, is essentially the "President" of the world.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by Phlynx

I agree with you. Much talent and skills and even resources are wasted due to restrictions arising from the prevailing system.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by Yeah-Alright]

I can't believe how brainwashed the people on this site really ARE!!!

The elite want no borders and no races - they want you all to breed together and become one brown people with no culture or identity - other than simply being their slaves.

I can't believe how many people here are ever so keen to delete their race and their culture from the Earth and have no identity other than that of slave!!!

"The activities of The Order are directed towards changing our society, changing the world, to bring about a New World Order. This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, (fascism) without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction."

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Trublue]

I totally disagree of the original thread statement. I believe their should be borders, and boundaries.

Why?

For instance. America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand are all english speaking countries. Sure they are a multi-cultural society, and other people speak other languages there, but they operate as a English language country.

Now just say there are no borders and everyone is free to go anywhere. Now lets say thier is a big economic boom happening in a specific part of Australia for instance. Just say Gold is discovered!!!! Everyone floods in from every single country to go gold digging and make thier fortunes or get a job in the industry.. Now lets just say that out of the world of 6.5 billion people that of those 6.5 billion, 0.5% of them decide to try thier luck at digging up some gold, and they flood over to Tasmania, Australia with a curent population of like 350 thousand or something. 0.5% of the world population is 32.5 million. Now i dont know about you, but if 32.5 million people decided to flood into my home country of 21.5 million people, and they all settled into the bottom island of tasmania, panning for gold, dwarfing the original island population like that, and i was one of those original people, living a lovely calm life of peace and harmony. I'd be pretty pissed off.

And not only that, they all have these different languages they're speaking, different cultural beliefs, thier trying to change my beliefs, and half of them dont have possessions so they trying to steal my car out front every night, camping out front in the garden bed, because they got no house to go to as there isn't enough services, or housing plots to fit all these people in, etc , etc



[edit on 28-4-2010 by DaRAGE]

There was once a group of early humans, they were unified in language , location , and enemy.....the pesky Dinasours.
Then there was a flash in the sky and all the dinasours rolled over and died.
For aperiod all was rosy, the group of humans feasted on the once feared enemy.
But soon after the easy food was consumed,the humans attention focussed on each other.
The greenskinned ones appeared fatter than the purple ones so the purple ones asked each other "Did they eat more than their fair share?
The Purple skinned ones examined the green skins clubs,they asked each other"Their clubs why are they bigger?" " Do they mean us harm?
Eventually these suspicions turned to aminosity a fight erupted, the green skins with their clubs won out and subjugated the purpleskins, they made their lifes so miserable that the purplekins got together and in the dead of night marched as far awayfrom the green skins as possible.
Then many eons later after these two skins had divided into many subskins.... some bigskins decided all the skins should reunite, and who knows the outcome? For all this kin!

Originally posted by Phlynx
The people who would decide upon the laws would be the people of the cities and towns where it should be enforced. The laws will be decided locally, and the taxes will be decided locally. My ideal for this would be a world constitution that has to be followed in every town. The towns and cities would have to make sure it is followed.

What would happen if there was a large minority in a city that disagreed strongly enough with laws passed that they decided to up-sticks and form their own ''country'' ?

What if a town or city passed a law preventing other people entering their town without permission ?

How, for example, are Christians going to accept being governed by laws in a majority Muslim city, and vice versa ?
What's going to stop minorities in towns all moving to a mass conglomeration of like-minded people and effectively forming their own country with their own languages, rules, culture and customs ?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas



I didn't say it just had to be socialism. I said there could also be capitalism.

Anyways, what you are purposing is the same exact thing COMMUNIST China and North Korea did, close of there borders, and make it near impossible to get in.

I am not saying we should have a one world government either. I am saying we should have many small local governments run what is going on. If one local government wants to have a small form of socialism where they share food and health-care there, that is there choice, but that is in no way forcing another town to join there ideals.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !

Originally posted by Phlynx
The people who would decide upon the laws would be the people of the cities and towns where it should be enforced. The laws will be decided locally, and the taxes will be decided locally. My ideal for this would be a world constitution that has to be followed in every town. The towns and cities would have to make sure it is followed.

What would happen if there was a large minority in a city that disagreed strongly enough with laws passed that they decided to up-sticks and form their own ''country'' ?

What if a town or city passed a law preventing other people entering their town without permission ?

How, for example, are Christians going to accept being governed by laws in a majority Muslim city, and vice versa ?
What's going to stop minorities in towns all moving to a mass conglomeration of like-minded people and effectively forming their own country with their own languages, rules, culture and customs ?

They don't have to start a country, they can have a local community.

Like stated before, unjust laws will be against the constitution. It will be much like the American constitution that doesn't allow religion to have a part in the laws that are made.

There is nothing wrong with people creating there own community and having all of there own languages, this idea doesn't banish cultures in anyway. It is a way of saying, "Open all borders so anyone can go anywhere" You can still call North America, North America. There will still be names, but there won't be "countries" as we call them.

1 "The activities of The Order are directed towards changing our society, changing the world, to bring about a New World Order. 2 This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, (fascism) without Constitutional protection, 3 without national boundaries or cultural distinction."

1 Revolution changes society, and maybe even the world. Is that part of the New World Order. Also, if this is a definition, you can't have the word you are defining used to define itself.

2 My idea isn't fascist, and it has constitutional protection. This in no way restricts freedoms.

3. The only correct part is boundaries in this. There is no problem with culture hear. Please read.

This is the problem as I see it, though; this is totalarian.
It is unworkable because it is based on what some would say was an arbitrary constitution of rules and values that everybody would have to live under, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

Originally posted by Phlynx
They don't have to start a country, they can have a local community.

What if people wanted to form a country, though ?
Are they just told ''you can't do that''. Then what if they disobey those laws and declare independence anyway ?

Originally posted by Phlynx
Like stated before, unjust laws will be against the constitution. It will be much like the American constitution that doesn't allow religion to have a part in the laws that are made.

What would be an unjust law ? What if one community was made up of entirely one denomination, who opted to live their lives by religious rules ?
Many would say it would be unjust to prevent their right to do so.

Originally posted by PhlynxThere is nothing wrong with people creating there own community and having all of there own languages, this idea doesn't banish cultures in anyway. It is a way of saying, "Open all borders so anyone can go anywhere" You can still call North America, North America. There will still be names, but there won't be "countries" as we call them.

What's to stop these communities policing themselves and deciding who can and can't enter their unofficial country ?

Originally posted by Conspiracy Chicks fan !
This is the problem as I see it, though; this is totalarian.
It is unworkable because it is based on what some would say was an arbitrary constitution of rules and values that everybody would have to live under, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

Originally posted by Phlynx
They don't have to start a country, they can have a local community.

What if people wanted to form a country, though ?
Are they just told ''you can't do that''. Then what if they disobey those laws and declare independence anyway ?

Originally posted by Phlynx
Like stated before, unjust laws will be against the constitution. It will be much like the American constitution that doesn't allow religion to have a part in the laws that are made.

What would be an unjust law ? What if one community was made up of entirely one denomination, who opted to live their lives by religious rules ?
Many would say it would be unjust to prevent their right to do so.

Originally posted by PhlynxThere is nothing wrong with people creating there own community and having all of there own languages, this idea doesn't banish cultures in anyway. It is a way of saying, "Open all borders so anyone can go anywhere" You can still call North America, North America. There will still be names, but there won't be "countries" as we call them.

What's to stop these communities policing themselves and deciding who can and can't enter their unofficial country ?

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