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

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.

reply to post by Phlynx


I totally agree with your philosophy! We are all children of the earth and should not be bound by geopolitical boundaries nor the governments that have selfishly declared them as their own.

It's a sad world really...when I think of all the beauty around the world; both in and outside of my dictated borders. And to think that some places are simply "off limits" to me, to you to everyone.

I am certainly an advocate of any peaceful movement that directs us towards unification as human beings and results in the destruction of worldwide nationalism.

S&F for you!



P.S. The Beatles are phenomenal and Imagine is one of my all time favorite songs. Revolution ranks right up there too!

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

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 Phlynx

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.

Not the same.

If you have not experienced the passion of England V's Germany, England V's Argentina in The World Cup or England V's Australia in The Ashes or Europe V's USA in The Ryder Cup or England V's Scotland in anything then you haven't lived.

Competition between different cities / teams whilst passionate at times pales into insignificance when compared.

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.

reply to post by Conspiracy Chicks fan !


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???

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.

Originally posted by Phlynx
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

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

That's the problem, all of what you're discussing will lead to everything I posted originally.

Under Socialism, it will be sold one way, under Capitalism, it will be sold another way.

Either way, those people in power will sell it, because they see this as a means to do what you're proposing, considering it streamlines Federal Government procedures.

Outside of your ideals and parameters.

Originally posted by Phlynx
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.

Sorry, I do not agree with that assessment, it should be impossible to get in, illegally.

Hence the name Illegal Immigrants, it is illegal.

And by that I am referring strictly to the entry into and or movement across the Border, through non-legal means, with the intent towards evading Immigration Law.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Immigration Law

Immigration law refers to national government policies which control the phenomenon of immigration to their country.

Immigration law, regarding foreign citizens, is related to nationality law, which governs the legal status of people, in matters such as citizenship.

Immigration laws vary from country to country, as well as according to the political climate of the times, as sentiments may sway from the widely inclusive to the deeply exclusive of new immigrants.

Immigration law regarding the citizens of a country is regulated by international law.

The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates that all countries allow entry to its own citizens.

Certain countries may maintain rather strict laws which regulate both the right of entry and internal rights, such as the duration of stay and the right to participate in government.

Most countries have laws which designate a process for naturalization, by which immigrants may become citizens.

I have zero issues, if someone wants to enter America, through legal means.

And I'm actually irked that Arizona is doing what it is doing, not because of the issue itself, at least not the specific nature, but because the fact that there are "Illegal Immigrants" means the Border is not dealt with effectively, efficiently, and or with the proper level of responsibility it is allegedly deemed.

In other words, those "Coyote's" smuggling illegals across the Mexico/America border through Human Trafficking are obviously more highly motivated and or paid then the Border staff.

Or possibly, they just know how to be crooks, better than the Border knows Law Enforcement?

Or some variation of that in between considering all of the loopholes in Federal and State laws.

What Arizona is proposing and or doing is directly linked to racial profiling.

I understand racial profiling, but do not agree with it, because it leads to bigoted thinking.

There is far too much room for error and or abuse for this proposal under current legislation.

Originally posted by Phlynx
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.

Well, I have zero desire for a "One World Government" too, but it's going to happen.

The Boy Who Cried N.W.O. : Are You Watching Puppet or Puppet Master's?

Not because of my lack of desire and or our interactions, but because people would much rather sit on their laurels, and complain, whine, and bitch about Government.

Instead of getting involved directly with the form of Government we already have.

If you're not a part of the solution, not only are you a part of the problem, you are the problem.

Me?

ATS is not the only place I disucuss these ideas, on a daily basis, I suggest books on Government, communicate ideas of how to do the right thing, and as well considering I have knowledge I am putting it to use everywhere I can.

What about you and what you do to effect the change you want to see?

[edit on 29-4-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by Trublue


Thank God, I don't think this is the case, generally, but it is my opinion that there is/ are (a) certain organized group(s) of people who are currently infiltrating/ joining/ what have you every forum that has the slightest political content and trying to push/ coerce & ridicule their way into dominance. The user ids these people chose are not even subtle (one who sticks in my mind is someone who called themselves "Freerider"- the definition of which is "cheat") Google Cass Sunstein and it may give you some clues what is actually going on. You- we, are supposed to think in terms of "everybody" doing this or that, but it is just social engineering and manipulation.

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.