'Countries' - The Fences Of Division.

World government propaganda. Such an institution would be far more corrupt than any country that represents a fraction of the Earth's surface area. With countries, there is at least some escape to another country with different laws that may be far less persecuting. Under a totalitarian world government, there is no escape.

 

I like how my country protects me when someone wants to kill me and take my stuff. There are very few governments which are worse than no government at all....

 

You totally missed the entire point the OP was making. He was calling for a single world country...a world government, which would be the most totalitarian institution of all time - the absolute antithesis of an anarcho-capitalist system that you think he supports for some reason.

 

When did they claim that?

 

Well, I don't know. This particular ideal of everyone being freethinking is the sort of thing that Ayn Rand dreamed of.

Theoretically, if everyone was intelligent and both mentally and physically healthy, we could all live in a self-sufficient manner where national borders would be unnecessary. It would also help if we all had the same culture or at least similar ways of thinking, so as to minimize conflict.

Unless we go the Gattaca route, however, I don't see this happening.

 

I think what happened in the beginning is that humans spread out so much that different cultures developed. When small groups of humans are isolated from each other, they develop traits different from people outside of their groups.

This is how different languages and religions developed, for example.

I just see clique-related behavior as being too innate in humans for any real possibility of a globally unified species to manifest.

Another one of the only ways it could happen would involve what happened in "The Invasion" (the remake of the Body Snatchers movie). Having a collective consciousness would make global unification much, much easier.

But of course, the odds of that happening through an alien epidemic are astronomically low.

 

Transnationalism is what the world without borders phenomenon is called. It can't happen until each and every human society on earth works through and purges its nationalism and other pathologies.

The world is seeing a resurgence of ethnic nationalism and separatism. Any transnational possibility is in the far distant future if at all.

 

....and rids itself of the evil super wealthy and their brother corporations.

 

People like George Soros, Jeffrey Immelt, Warren Buffet, Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Ted Turner, George Kaiser, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi...all Democrats.

 

Take a biology class, bro. All animals stake out and fight to defend territory. It is as natural as eating, sex, or taking that morning whiz. The arrogance comes in some people's belief that they are somehow "more sophisticated" than the way nature designed them. It is noble to temper your nature. But it is foolish to think you can fundamentally reprogram it.

 

What country borders are good for is your enemies. They are outside, so with all the outside resources, they can push your border against you, until you get smaller and smaller and then you disappear. There are 2 recent world wars to support this theory + the collapse of the Soviet systems.

 

Borders and countries, and the need for them, are, in my opionion, unfortunate. Most people don't choose to separate themselves from others. A major problem is economic but another is the chauvinist governments that want to keep people seaprated. In larger countries, they even try to separate people within the country by region or culture or whatever else they can find.

 

I don't know if we ever could not have some system of borders and geographical markers/regional names.

 

I think about the place I live and national boundaries start to seem pretty irrational. I live on an island that has been claimed by several different nations, I believe, and that's just since the Europeans took over. Did anything real change in this place when the Spanish planted their flag here? The British? The United States? The rocks are the same rocks that have been here since before there were even humans here, maybe ten thousand years ago. The people haven't even really changed much -- it's still village life, with some aristocrats who keep the village here so there's someone to do their dishes. The languages have changed a bunch of times, but it's still pretty much the same business as usual. Does the occupying government really matter that much?

 

Not quite sure why you think one follows the other.

Human beings evolved to grow smarter and more creative.

I think that would have taken place, even if one of those creations hadn't been to ringfence parts of a planet that has been here for 4.5billion years, and artifically label it as belonging to them.

Who knows, it may even have led to us making more progress, not less.

 

But you are working under the assumption that a conventional Gov would definitely have came to pass.

Maybe it wouldn't.

Gov's exist because nations exist. If nations had never existed, maybe it would follow that Gov's, least nothing like that which we would call one today, would have existed either?

 

But what isolates people from each other? Natural borders such as mountains and oceans used to do it, but we've overcome those. Now it's the national boundary that declares that people speak one language on one side of the line and another language on the other.

 

Your country doesn't.

Some passers by might, if you are fortunate.

The police might, if they are passing.

But your 'country' does not.

Nothing in what I wrote suggested that someone would be free to murder another, or that there would be no moral and ethical structure.

 

I didn't.

I spoke of what would have become of homo sapien, without the artificial and often divisive construct of nation states and borders.

I then went on to suggest that as a result of that, 'Gov's' as we know them, and very possibly Monarchs too, may never have materialised. After all, they are a bi product of nation states.

 

Who or what is an obstacle to it?

In your view.

 

Are you no more sentient than a baboon?

Is that what you are stating?

 

Certainly not as an exclusive species. Do you think the other species on this planet do not create territories and boundaries?

Resource efficient, safety controlled, breeding and heirarchy structurally balanced etc.

As a reasoning capable species...we just pee on spots on the maps, not on the dirt anymore.

 

A standard business technique that has always been used to maximize pricing and profits is market differentiation. This is why various consumer product parameters are different for the same product in different regions. The establishment of national currencies is only an extention of this strategy. And then, national currencies create nations and national borders. It is only a mind control tactic that this all is linked to majority languages of each differentiated piece, i.e. country.

 

Ants do.

Indeed, there world is like a microcosm of our world.

They build societies. They even have systems and a hierarchy. The create great houses to live in. They often go to war.

But I had hoped humans were able to think beyond the limited mind of an ant. When ants raid the nest of another species of ant, and kill en masse, the ant is not doing this because the ant is evil, or bad. It is doing this, because the tiny brain of the ant has been wired up to behave only one way.

However, if we are going to just accept that as 'animals', we may as well accept all the things that animals do, as being things we humans can also fairly do, since we are animals, then why bother with rules the regulate paedophila, incest and rape, since these actions are also common in other animals - esp primates.

 

No.

Nothing in my post suggested that I am happy with the sheer number and weight of the rules I deal with in my own country, state and munipality.

Eliminating borders forces us all to obey the same rules, and that is untenable. One of the supreme benefits of decentralized Government is the ability to fashion rules to the liking of the locals, and to be able to change them quickly and as easily as possible when needed.

Eliminating borders and requiring everyone to live under the same sets of rules literally squashes that ability.

You proposed "one world". There is no question in my mind that an effort to bring that about has been taking place for a very long time - and I can guarantee you that such a thing will never come about without "myriad rules".

If you read "the exact opposite" in my posts, then you're gleaning something which doesn't exist. My point has been clear: nearly all rules should be locally enforced, and the power to change should them likewise remain local.

I flatly reject your premise. Forming Nations is a natural process...which is why we've had nothing but that since history began being recorded. Your wish to call it "artificial" is closely associated with your utopian perceptions.

There is no practical reality of a Government-less people who live without borders. It would last exactly as long as it took for one group to congeal power, and over-run the others.