6 ms·

> The sooner the world will have no borders the better. I think you should really think that over. A world with no borders is a world with one government. Cu

by pdx 16y ago

> The sooner the world will have no borders the better. I think you should really think that over. A world with no borders is a world with one government. Currently, if your government becomes something you can't tolerate, you can usually move to another country, or at least dream of moving. With a single, world government, your only option is revolution, which I believe is rapidly becoming almost impossible and certainly would be against the might and resources of a world government. Are you really willing to resign your children, grandchildren, and humanity in general to some unknown world government of the future? Are you really so trusting? Even if you don't believe that under such a system, human rights would erode at an alarming rate, you should at least shun it for the very reason that there is no diversity that will save you in case of unforeseen events. You want the world to be a field of wheat, all of a single strain. You would never advocate such a plan with actual wheat, since you know that diversity is a form of insurance.

jacquesm 16y ago
Why should I trust or distrust a world government more or less than the current ones? What is the last time in living memory that people in a developed country revolted against their rulers? Poland? That was more of a strike, and that weapon will always be available.
- pdx 16y ago
  When something is possible, it is often not necessary. That it's possible that I may strike you in the nose if you're rude enough is generally enough to keep you from being rude enough to cause me to need to strike you. That revolution is possible is generally enough for governments not to trample too heavily on their population. In both cases, the actual act is not carried out, just the possibility of it is enough. But I agree that the gulf between civilian and government might is fearfully large already, which makes moving to another country a much better option. Of course, your world won't have that option.
  - Robin_Message 16y ago
    But you're back to the point of the OP - for all the people that want to exercise the option (e.g. some residents of China, North Korea or Iran) moving to another country isn't an option, so having separate countries isn't helping them anyway. Also, since the EU has borders with free movement (and doesn't even check on internal borders), which meets the grandparent's goal of being able to easily move countries, you are wrong to say this inevitably means forming a single world government. (Edited for appalling grammar)
    - pdx 16y ago
      How old is the EU? Already, after only a few years, the erosion of sovereignty of the individual countries is well along. I think it proves the point more than refutes it.
      - Robin_Message 16y ago
        About 50. Nations have chosen to delegate some parts of their running certainly - more so than the US states in some areas, less so in most others. Any answer to the first point? This debate is immaterial since in countries that people actually want to leave: a. their own government won't let them leave and b. our governments won't let them come. The question I suppose is, can we find a way to reduce our borders without creating a world government, since that is clearly a bad thing? I believe we can, will and should.
- dagw 16y ago
  Why should I trust or distrust a world government more or less than the current ones? It's not about trust, but about choice. It's like with any product. Lots of choice plus little vendor lock-in tends to lead to better products. No or little choice plus strong vendor lock-in leads to worse products. If you combine lots of countries/governments with more open borders, then people can shop around for a government they like. What is the last time in living memory that people in a developed country revolted against their rulers? Each time someone gets tired of the government in their current country and decides to move because of it, that is a revolt against their rulers. The point is there is no need for me to overthrow my government as long as I'm free to move. Violent revolt is simply not necessary if borders are open. If you really don't like the government you have, pick a different one. There are plenty to chose from around the world, and it's a lot cheaper and easier than staging a violent revolution.
zargon 16y ago
A world with no borders is a world with one government. Or a world with no government. Saying many governments is better than one government is like saying more slave masters is better than one, since some of them might be more lenient.
- philwelch 16y ago
  A world with no government lasts exactly as long as it takes for some charismatic guy to round up some armed men and set up a new government. Out of 300-500 million people in the 13th century we had Genghis Khan--how many Genghis Khans are we going to find out of 7 billion people? Humanity's had two steady states--hunting and gathering, and governments. It's an interesting question how authority functioned in hunter-gatherer tribes prior to the invention of civilization and government, but since then, government has been the only steady state. It's even more of a steady state than hunting and gathering, because the hunter-gatherers kept realizing they were better warriors than the grain-fed populations of a civilization, so they conquered neighboring civilizations and set up their own government.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    There is some contradiction in this thread, on the one hand the whole world population is deemed to be incapable of rising up against a 'bad' world government and on the other all it takes is one charismatic guy to round up 'some armed men'.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      I don't think you'd end up with a single world government. I think you'd end up with thousands of smaller conquerers carving out territory for themselves, and a gradual process where empires grow, break apart, join together, etc.. You know, basically the entire history of the world over again, except with nuclear weapons.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    This belief, while widely held is utterly unproven. Things are vastly different now than they were in Genghis Khan's time. Further, in Africa hunter/gatherer was doing pretty well for the most part until the imperialists interfered. The issues before were poor education and slow communication. If your neighbor country decided to conquer you, by the time you were mobilized to defend yourself you had already lost. Education has gotten vastly better over time. We didn't switch away from Monarchy because the monarchy decided to give up their power. The people became too educated to be controlled in this manner. Communication is also practically instant now. If a Genghis Khan began conquering a government-less world with our current level of technology, by the time he finished conquering the first neighbor he would already be surrounded by everyone else. I'm not saying Anarchy could work, but rather that we don't know yet. It's never been properly tried. Of course you would expect this. Governments don't want it to be tried because if it did somehow manage to work they would lose their power.

by pdx 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

Why should I trust or distrust a world government more or less than the current ones? What is the last time in living memory that people in a developed country revolted against their rulers? Poland? That was more of a strike, and that weapon will always be available.

pdx 16y ago
When something is possible, it is often not necessary. That it's possible that I may strike you in the nose if you're rude enough is generally enough to keep you from being rude enough to cause me to need to strike you. That revolution is possible is generally enough for governments not to trample too heavily on their population. In both cases, the actual act is not carried out, just the possibility of it is enough. But I agree that the gulf between civilian and government might is fearfully large already, which makes moving to another country a much better option. Of course, your world won't have that option.
- Robin_Message 16y ago
  But you're back to the point of the OP - for all the people that want to exercise the option (e.g. some residents of China, North Korea or Iran) moving to another country isn't an option, so having separate countries isn't helping them anyway. Also, since the EU has borders with free movement (and doesn't even check on internal borders), which meets the grandparent's goal of being able to easily move countries, you are wrong to say this inevitably means forming a single world government. (Edited for appalling grammar)
  - pdx 16y ago
    How old is the EU? Already, after only a few years, the erosion of sovereignty of the individual countries is well along. I think it proves the point more than refutes it.
    - Robin_Message 16y ago
      About 50. Nations have chosen to delegate some parts of their running certainly - more so than the US states in some areas, less so in most others. Any answer to the first point? This debate is immaterial since in countries that people actually want to leave: a. their own government won't let them leave and b. our governments won't let them come. The question I suppose is, can we find a way to reduce our borders without creating a world government, since that is clearly a bad thing? I believe we can, will and should.
dagw 16y ago
Why should I trust or distrust a world government more or less than the current ones? It's not about trust, but about choice. It's like with any product. Lots of choice plus little vendor lock-in tends to lead to better products. No or little choice plus strong vendor lock-in leads to worse products. If you combine lots of countries/governments with more open borders, then people can shop around for a government they like. What is the last time in living memory that people in a developed country revolted against their rulers? Each time someone gets tired of the government in their current country and decides to move because of it, that is a revolt against their rulers. The point is there is no need for me to overthrow my government as long as I'm free to move. Violent revolt is simply not necessary if borders are open. If you really don't like the government you have, pick a different one. There are plenty to chose from around the world, and it's a lot cheaper and easier than staging a violent revolution.

zargon 16y ago

A world with no borders is a world with one government. Or a world with no government. Saying many governments is better than one government is like saying more slave masters is better than one, since some of them might be more lenient.

philwelch 16y ago
A world with no government lasts exactly as long as it takes for some charismatic guy to round up some armed men and set up a new government. Out of 300-500 million people in the 13th century we had Genghis Khan--how many Genghis Khans are we going to find out of 7 billion people? Humanity's had two steady states--hunting and gathering, and governments. It's an interesting question how authority functioned in hunter-gatherer tribes prior to the invention of civilization and government, but since then, government has been the only steady state. It's even more of a steady state than hunting and gathering, because the hunter-gatherers kept realizing they were better warriors than the grain-fed populations of a civilization, so they conquered neighboring civilizations and set up their own government.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  There is some contradiction in this thread, on the one hand the whole world population is deemed to be incapable of rising up against a 'bad' world government and on the other all it takes is one charismatic guy to round up 'some armed men'.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I don't think you'd end up with a single world government. I think you'd end up with thousands of smaller conquerers carving out territory for themselves, and a gradual process where empires grow, break apart, join together, etc.. You know, basically the entire history of the world over again, except with nuclear weapons.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  This belief, while widely held is utterly unproven. Things are vastly different now than they were in Genghis Khan's time. Further, in Africa hunter/gatherer was doing pretty well for the most part until the imperialists interfered. The issues before were poor education and slow communication. If your neighbor country decided to conquer you, by the time you were mobilized to defend yourself you had already lost. Education has gotten vastly better over time. We didn't switch away from Monarchy because the monarchy decided to give up their power. The people became too educated to be controlled in this manner. Communication is also practically instant now. If a Genghis Khan began conquering a government-less world with our current level of technology, by the time he finished conquering the first neighbor he would already be surrounded by everyone else. I'm not saying Anarchy could work, but rather that we don't know yet. It's never been properly tried. Of course you would expect this. Governments don't want it to be tried because if it did somehow manage to work they would lose their power.