Please help me understand the no border ideology - page 3.

mrcash02

hero member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 525

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: PeterTheGrape on March 28, 2017, 07:33:55 PM

Quote from: mrcash02 on March 28, 2017, 07:18:38 PM

Quote from: HabBear on March 28, 2017, 01:48:38 PM

... And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

I don't see those who claimed lands as bad, evil people trying to rule others. Who claimed lands needed to have security mechanisms to defend their land, what means they needed to be intelligent persons, able to create things and solve problems.

... if they were unhappy they could li[v]e by themselves on the forests, mountains or to find another land.

If a person takes enough land to live and does not kill those who settle nearby then all is good. But that is not the reality today. Some people own enough land for thousands of people, and many others own none.

Living in the forests or going to new places is not an easy option. You need to buy paper to not be harassed by police, you need to be careful of local customs to not get attacked for offending somebody's belief, etc.

No matter how good your intention may be, i.e., just to settle harmlessly somewhere and live your life, in most places you cannot do that because a) government employees will attack you and b) wealthy people who see you as a threat to their power will attack you and c) poor uneducated people who see you as a threat to their bliss will attack you.

Government is still necessary until education makes it not.

I was talking about the middle ages and before. The beginning of our society. Today is similar on some aspects, but the humanity evolved, technology evolved, everything evolved...

We can't live in 2017 like nomads and forest-bush people.

PeterTheGrape

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: mrcash02 on March 28, 2017, 07:18:38 PM

Quote from: HabBear on March 28, 2017, 01:48:38 PM

... And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

I don't see those who claimed lands as bad, evil people trying to rule others. Who claimed lands needed to have security mechanisms to defend their land, what means they needed to be intelligent persons, able to create things and solve problems.

... if they were unhappy they could li[v]e by themselves on the forests, mountains or to find another land.

If a person takes enough land to live and does not kill those who settle nearby then all is good. But that is not the reality today. Some people own enough land for thousands of people, and many others own none.

Living in the forests or going to new places is not an easy option. You need to buy paper to not be harassed by police, you need to be careful of local customs to not get attacked for offending somebody's belief, etc.

No matter how good your intention may be, i.e., just to settle harmlessly somewhere and live your life, in most places you cannot do that because a) government employees will attack you and b) wealthy people who see you as a threat to their power will attack you and c) poor uneducated people who see you as a threat to their bliss will attack you.

Government is still necessary until education makes it not.

mrcash02

hero member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 525

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Quote from: HabBear on March 28, 2017, 01:48:38 PM

The negatives you identify are totally accurate. However the people that are biggest supporters of this ideology don't think about these sort of negative consequences. The supporters believe in utopia and being citizens of the world. The reality is that this existed in this world, thousands of years ago in the earliest days of Man. And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

I don't see those who claimed lands as bad, evil people trying to rule others. Who claimed lands needed to have security mechanisms to defend their land, what means they needed to be intelligent persons, able to create things and solve problems.

The biggest part of population wasn't (and isn't) able to do it, so they prefered just to be a "serf", to work for the lord land and have food and protection (these days things didn't change so much). Some people can say: "The lord land explored the other people"... But no, it didn't happen. He had the land and those people wanted to be there, it's a deal, if they were unhappy they could like by themselves on the forests, mountains or to find another land.

PeterTheGrape

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: HabBear on March 28, 2017, 01:48:38 PM

... the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

That is a good description of the problem, except for one thing.

"The same set of rules" that would work are of course not government rules, political rules dictated by a small group. "The same set of rules" has to be based on a broader more natural set of laws.

So, for example, "no borders" would not work if a person could be 'punished' on the basis of not having money or failing to respect those who do, being from a certain group, ethnicity race etc as a minority etc.

The only criteria that has to be universally respected is the actual infringement on somebody else's space. You are free to smoke anything, not free to blow the smoke toward somebody.

Ultimately 'no border' society evolves, it isn't imposed even by idealists unless they are masochists. Society started with only families at the dawn of humanity. Then families and clans. Then families, clans and tribes. Then families, clans, tribes and nations. Now we are at families, clans, tribes, nations and ideologies. If you try to step on a previous group though your 'ideology' will get eaten.

HabBear

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 637

The negatives you identify are totally accurate. However the people that are biggest supporters of this ideology don't think about these sort of negative consequences. The supporters believe in utopia and being citizens of the world. The reality is that this existed in this world, thousands of years ago in the earliest days of Man. And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

santaclaws

member

Activity: 119

Merit: 100

Horror Movie Phreak

I am all for a one world order/government. Good points so far.

I would argue that the people living in 3rd world countries would not migrate westward. Instead what would happen is development in their countries by the world's corporations. Why would they leave when they would have jobs building on their own land and cities.

As for bandits and thieves, well where is all the military spending going to go? I'm sure there will be some military to deal with terrorists but all that money that was being spent on military can now be used to stop crime.

GreenBits

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1048

Quote from: Masha Sha on March 28, 2017, 02:30:52 AM

This political ideology is gaining a lot of supporters. I need to understand the advantages and problems that such a world conception carry. I would like to know why some support and what would some gain of it and what would other lose. Thank you in advance, my aim is to have an open minded honnest discussion on the topic.

My current understanding, i hope that you wil be able to enlighten me on other perspectives and facts i don't see.

Positive i guess that the ideal of universal right to establish oneself where ever is interesting. Increase mobility opportunity, job seeking and competition opportunity, a more diverse cultural field and less restrictions.

Negative, i see that most breed like invasive species, slums and unsanitary living conditions expanding, security risks, the loss of cultural homogenity, most third world places got there because of their values what would prevent them to impose those everywhere they get dominance, the overcrowding of civilised places, lack of infrastructure and living spaces, the drop of job wages, the collapse of social and public services, the spread of roamers and bandits tribes.

Your turn...

Btw 5billions people have less average income than mexicans... it's a lot.

I dont understand the need to preserve cultural homogenity. No cultures exist in a vacuum; and most cultures are smart enough to assimilate best practice/, most efficient methods from the culture it hosts (music, cuisine, language conventions, even fashion). And out groups have no problem maintaining their culture when they are abroad, they cluster into communities to reinforce the parts of their culture they wish to keep.

So why do certain populist leaning politics have an appeal? Surely it's obvious that homogenity results in stagnation. Rather than stand alone, participate in the evolution of the whole.

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

This political ideology is gaining a lot of supporters. I need to understand the advantages and problems that such a world conception carry. I would like to know why some support and what would some gain of it and what would other lose. Thank you in advance, my aim is to have an open minded honnest discussion on the topic.

My current understanding, i hope that you wil be able to enlighten me on other perspectives and facts i don't see.

Positive i guess that the ideal of universal right to establish oneself where ever is interesting. Increase mobility opportunity, job seeking and competition opportunity, a more diverse cultural field and less restrictions.

Negative, i see that most breed like invasive species, slums and unsanitary living conditions expanding, security risks, the loss of cultural homogenity, most third world places got there because of their values what would prevent them to impose those everywhere they get dominance, the overcrowding of civilised places, lack of infrastructure and living spaces, the drop of job wages, the collapse of social and public services, the spread of roamers and bandits tribes.

Your turn...

Btw 5billions people have less average income than mexicans... it's a lot.

Topic: Please help me understand the no border ideology - page 3. (Read 2175 times)