[Jro]

The World has been divided into small parts in the forms of countries. It will be lot easier for all of us if we treat World as one country and maybe, current countries as different Provinces.
I always feel that, there is something missing at World level which binds us all together (besides Humanity).
What do you think, what role the borders plays, are they placed to divide us or just for the easy management?

[Thinker]

History places borders, culture crystallises them.

I can only cite a local example in relation to attempting to move/change borders.
This is one aspect of "seeing borders differently".

Through the late 1800's, when the Australian constitution was drawn up, both Fiji and New Zealand were considering joining the federation. For various reasons, they decided not to. In fact there is capacity for Australia to admit new states, and this arose as a direct result of NZ and Fiji declining.

There have been ongoing discussions with NZ about increasing levels of integration with Australia. In many respects, it makes a lot of sense for Australia and NZ to merge into a single economic entity (or country). The fact is that "national pride" seems to be the main impediment and this arises due to our different cultures (in my opinion). (It would be similar to the US and Canada merging).

So, whilst it may seem logical to dispense with borders, variation in cultures is the most significant impediment.

I put this example up because most outsiders consider Australia and NZ have very similar cultures, but the fact is that getting agreement to "merge", or "bring down the border" is almost impossible.

[Urshulgi]

The problem with the idea of their being one world, is that everyone would have a vote, and the billions of irresponsibly reproducing poor illiterates would vote to be given aid that they have not earned.

If we could kill most of them first, then I would be receptive to the idea of a world without borders.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem with the idea of their being one world, is that everyone would have a vote, and the billions of irresponsibly reproducing poor illiterates would vote to be given aid that they have not earned. If we could kill most of them first, then I would be receptive to the idea of a world without borders.

I disagree. The problem with being one world is that nobody would have a vote. It seems like the more people a government is involved in the less rights those people have and the more oppressive the government becomes.

[peppersasen]

I don't see what's wrong with the concept. The idea of "one centralized world" used to appeal to me when I was young and innocent. But now, frankly, it teriffies me. In your opinion, who would govern this centralized world? What kind of people would they be like? Would the "provinces" be autonomous? Would the national laws have to be changed significantly? Who would draft the constitution: right to own firearms or no firearms? And what if one really badass dictator won the elections? Would all "provinces" have their own reps at the parliament? How would armed conflict between "provinces" be handled? Like a civil war? Will there only be one military? But wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of a military force in the first place, to defend its country? The single military would function more like police. Or would there be provincial militaries? But then why would provinces be allowed to have their own army if they're not even sovereign? And what's going to happen to the high seas, will I still be able to throw drug parties on my yacht?

The way I see the world right now is it's like a "peer-reviewed journal". You've got more democratic countries looking after citizens of the less democratic ones. It reminds of this saying I learned in UN Peacekeeping class about a Secretary-Bulletin on sexual harassment and abuse and prohibited conduct by UN Peacekeepers against locals: "who will guard the guardians?" (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?). So who will guard the guards when they abuse their power? Useless intergovernmental organizations are one thing (they may be useless and incompetent as hell, but at least they have little power), but a centralized government can be hell.

Anyway, it reminds me of this photo I found on
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The idea does appeal to my evil alter-ego, though.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Haumea]

I hereby offer peppersasen my hand in marriage.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you think of the meme of OneWorldism as basically a propaganda tool to enslave the citizenry of the Western world, to have Sauron's ring that "rules them all" and to impose unprecedented unspeakably despotic evil on the entire planet, things suddenly become quite clear.

[Silence]

Territoriality will always exist, IMHO.

[MrDoom]

I'm just fine with tinpot dictators and religious fanatics who would kill me for 'infidelity' and non-belief being separated from my person by a well-armed border or a very large body of water (an ocean of lava preferably).

[HAL 9000]

	Originally Posted by Silence To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Territoriality will always exist, IMHO.

Indeed. It seems more of a question of ontology than axiology.

[Ytterbium]

To answer the OP question. Both. Borders are to ease and some become obstacles. They will always exist, it's just a matter where they be drawn best.
Thinker mentioned NZ and Oz. This can be seen more as an obstacle in a same way the Norwegian-Swedish border is such a construction. It's not the first time the question of merging the whole Nordic into one state or supranational entity, for instance. If borders where to be drawn the best way. Nations ceases to exist new ones are born, countries merge, countries split.

Currently 19 days to go before Belgium beats Iraq in the amount of days not being able to form a goverment after election.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. This is a perfect example where border can be created. Between Flanders and Wallonia. Any Belgians here by any chance?

[Jro]

I had not thought much about the details. But the idea of one world, inspires me. I agree, it is not easy to do it. What I want to understand is, is it worth doing it?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


There should be some list of values, which binds us globally.

[Ytterbium]

The problem is far too complex to be able to fit in one post. There are many variables that forms bonds between people and others that separate. A one world goverment is imposible to create. It would be a dictatorship if anything. How would you feel about if a few billion of people. On the other end of the world told you what and what not to do, eat or live?
This doesn't even work for smaller parts of the world such as Europe or states like Belgium. The only right thing to do is to leave people alone so they can live their own lives by their own rules. I believe people can live happily side by side in peace and harmony in their own nations. The conflicts arise when another state believes it can control the other, tell them what to do and so forth. These nations may freely bond with other states across the world. But it must come from themselves within.

[envirodude]

I love the idea of countries as provinces. I am Canadian, but I feel much more strongly attached to my province than to my nation. In Canada, most of the day-to-day important stuff is done by the province anyway - local transportation, health, education, municipal services. The nation deals with things where interprovincial cooperation is deemed necessary: military, currency, commerce, passports.

Clearly the local (provincial) stuff can still be done locally under a world government. Now, can interprovincial cooperation be maintained? Currency - no problem. The only people making money off currency transactions are "filter feeders" - good riddance. Commerce - should be easily workable; trade is international already. Passports - natch.

Military - I have NO idea how this could work. Any big brains out there figured out how to avoid military squabbles?

There's another federal function in Canada that is tricky: regional transfer payments. So the "rich" provinces have to send money to the "poor" provinces. That's going to cause huge issues as well, but I iNtuit that it will be more solvable than the military issue in the long run. Basically, we're moving in that direction anyway, with all the manufacturing and IT jobs going to developing countries as it is...

There are lots of other issue that will delay implementation: population planning, pollution, etc. But conceptually, I'm on board.

The real difficulty could be in "thermodynamics", that is, the end state may be attractive, but is the path to that end state passable? If the reorg requires massive disruption, people will keep on doing it the old way even if it's not the best (e.g. QWERTY keyboard, English language, etc.)

[Tito]

Originally Posted by Jro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The World has been divided into small parts in the forms of countries. It will be lot easier for all of us if we treat World as one country and maybe, current countries as different Provinces. I always feel that, there is something missing at World level which binds us all together (besides Humanity). What do you think, what role the borders plays, are they placed to divide us or just for the easy management?

You are aware that most countries in this world are a mess, right? Out of hundreds, only 20 to 30 are super organized, highly developed societies with a sense of rule of law and such. The vast majority fall somewhere between mild breakdowns and utter lawlessness.

If we can't handle little pieces, what makes you think the whole pie will be better?

Just imagine if some religious fundamentalist group manages to take control of the world. Imagine a wacko a la the leader of North Korea taking over the world. Do you want to see the whole world like that?

I know, the probabilities that will happen are, we think, relatively low. But, my point is that as long that there's a probability, then its too much to risk. Having the world broken down into hundreds of countries is the best thing that could had happened.

The result are many hells and a few heavens. When only a few countries are able to function as they are suppose to, that's a tell tale sign that we humans are very mediocre. No need to subject all of humanity to that nonsense.

[zibber]

Originally Posted by Jro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The World has been divided into small parts in the forms of countries. It will be lot easier for all of us if we treat World as one country and maybe, current countries as different Provinces. I always feel that, there is something missing at World level which binds us all together (besides Humanity). What do you think, what role the borders plays, are they placed to divide us or just for the easy management?

I am an Internationalist, so this is music to my ears.

	Originally Posted by peppersasen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The way I see the world right now is it's like a "peer-reviewed journal". You've got more democratic countries looking after citizens of the less democratic ones.

Right. Like the USA?

	Originally Posted by Siso To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are aware that most countries in this world are a mess, right? Out of hundreds, only 20 to 30 are super organized, highly developed societies with a sense of rule of law and such. The vast majority fall somewhere between mild breakdowns and utter lawlessness.

That's certainly a ridiculous claim.

[LaoTzu]

We already live under the rule of a small sect of "elite" powerful people who modify our behaviors based on external influences brought about by modifications in price; and regional modifications in policy.
Those in 'power' (if they even realize their power).... are not loyal to a particular line in the sand (like a border); but electronic lines that you find in any accounting program. (like a P&L sheet)


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. As evidenced by the USA. The Bulk of the world's economy travels through it; and yet it refuses to provide assistance to the most basic needs of its own citizens.... even patting itself on the back for "tough love" lol.

[peppersasen]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Right. Like the USA?

Among others.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Do you have an extremely negative view of what they do? FYI, I was refering to non-violent interventions.

---------- Post added 03-10-2011 at 05:29 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Haumea To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hereby offer peppersasen my hand in marriage. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Eh, I think I just blushed.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tito]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's certainly a ridiculous claim.

Have you traveled anywhere in the developing world? Because not only have I been to quite a few developing countries, my family actually comes from one of those Third World hell holes.

Keep in mind that we live in a world with a per capita income of barely $9,000; and we're posting here mostly from countries with per capita incomes well above the $20,000 mark, thanks to careful development in select places demarcated by borders. If you know what will happen with the elimination of borders, then you should knwo that what I previously said is not ridiculous at all.

[Geminii]

Borders irritate me. I don't have any problem with various local authorities saying "OK, you deal with everything on that side of this line, I'll deal with everything on this side", but artificial physical or red tape barriers aren't any kind of long-term solution.

[MichelleCDiaz]

I don't necessarily like "borders", but I prefer to see borders as different cultures than different territory, with these lines slightly blended.

Currently I see only one way for borders to be eliminated from the world, but it is much too harsh for many humans to handle at this point in time.

[Trevor]

I want more borders please. The USA is way too big for it's own good. Let's start with the deep south. We should cut them out like a cancer.

[rbc]

	Originally Posted by Jro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There should be some list of values, which binds us globally.

There isn't even a single set of values which binds us locally. The trend over the past 30 years is very strongly in the direction of breaking existing countries up into several smaller ones. Provinces talk about seceding from countries, cities talk about seceding from provinces, and even different neighborhoods within single cities advocate secession. The larger the group of people, the less they all agree on.

	Originally Posted by envirodude To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Military - I have NO idea how this could work. Any big brains out there figured out how to avoid military squabbles?

A military squabble between provinces within the same country is called a civil war. When they happen, they are generally even less "civil" (in the conventional meaning) than wars between different countries. The losing side is the one which gives in to the other's demands, which often take the form of one side wanting to become a separate country, and the other side not wanting to let them leave. The outcome of most civil wars reminds me of a saying I once heard about knife fights: "the winner is the one who ends up in the hospital" (because the loser ends up in the morgue).

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Borders really don't matter anymore. As evidenced by the USA.

I would say the U.S. demonstrates how much borders DO still matter! Just consider that what counts as poor in the U.S. is really very rich by the standards of many other countries -- and yet, since they live in the U.S., they really are very poor by local standards...

[Jro]

If we try to eliminate borders, we will be stronger, united and together we can do wonders. And we won't spend time and energy in fighting and competing with each other. Complexity is directly proportional to no of boundaries, and converse is also true.

I am not saying that this will happen in a day or two, for sure, it will take years, may be decades. But, is it not the right idea to be united and more powerful? Is it not the right idea to solve all our internal problems and work towards something big? is it not the right idea to accept people and build many connections?

It is very easy to divide and abandon things, it requires real courage to unite and come together.

[Autumnleaf]

	Originally Posted by Jro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I had not thought much about the details. But the idea of one world, inspires me. I agree, it is not easy to do it. What I want to understand is, is it worth doing it? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. There should be some list of values, which binds us globally.

Of course its worth doing. Just ask the Emperor of Rome or the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Siso To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Have you traveled anywhere in the developing world? Because not only have I been to quite a few developing countries, my family actually comes from one of those Third World hell holes.

Oh, my apologies. I do not have family there, so I can't say anything.

	Originally Posted by Siso To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Keep in mind that we live in a world with a per capita income of barely $9,000; and we're posting here mostly from countries with per capita incomes well above the $20,000 mark, thanks to careful development in select places demarcated by borders. If you know what will happen with the elimination of borders, then you should knwo that what I previously said is not ridiculous at all.

$9,000 would be decadently luxurious, for me. I spend maybe a couple hundred euro per month. I'm not entirely sure how your numbers support the claim that all but 20-30 countries in the world are in total shambles.