5 ms·

Borders are something to fight for, they serve no real benefit for anyone. It is nationalism, racism of sorts. Claiming a land that been there for millions of

Borders are something to fight for, they serve no real benefit for anyone. It is nationalism, racism of sorts. Claiming a land that been there for millions of years and will be "your property" for 40 odd years. Shoot on sight. But what drives human to hold onto such failing concept? Fear, anger, pride, instability?

sspiff 13y ago
That's not entirely true. They have/had benefit for rulers. They serve to indicate which people one feudal lord can tax and press into his army, and which people shall be pressed into his neighbours army and pay him taxes. At the very least, when they're marked in treaties, they prevent some confusion and conflicts and give rise to others, depending on the agenda of the rulers involved. So they certainly have a use for someone, albeit a tiny but highly visible minority.
- TausAmmer 13y ago
  That I must agree on, useful they are. As torture equipment or napalm also serves a purpose.
  - sspiff 13y ago
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I agree. Some people feel these things are useful, as damaging as they are to the vast majority of those involved.
    - TausAmmer 13y ago
      It can be sarcastic, but it is true and I don't think this should ever be discussed with sarcasm. One goes to drop bombs on someone else house because he is told so, nor man who drops the bombs nor family below benefits from it. But I can't find solution, humanity is defective in my eyes, almost fatally defective, it will survive and go on, but must come to absurd and dramatic turn that will bring it to knees and you have start again. And repeat, repeat repeat. Either I accept this as a part of the game or go insane.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
happyscrappy 13y ago
It is not a failing concept, it is the basis of all Western civilization. If you think there would be less violence and suffering without clear boundaries you are mistaken.
- Joeri 13y ago
  Isn't it because there weren't clear boundaries that there was so much war? Anyway, if people wish to muddle up a boundary for their own purposes, they will always find a way, claiming the will of the people to belong to a different country for example. Fundamentally, a nation state in the modern era is an administrative region and a form of identity. As a form of identity, it is very weak, because identity is a multi-faceted thing that cannot be reduced to as narrow a dimension as "country". As administrative regions, they have shown they prevent the efficient management of global resources by putting national interests before human interests. The notion of an independent nation-state is an outmoded concept in a globalized world. We need to move to a single global democracy. It's the only feasible form of government at this point when you look at the continuing inability of the big global players to agree on stuff that matters and avoid new armed conflicts.
  - happyscrappy 13y ago
    >We need to move to a single global democracy. China and Russia would balk. But it hardly matters, the EU can't even agree.
Houshalter 13y ago
Because we haven't figured out a better way to organize society, let alone get people to adopt it. I hate all these "look at the human race doing irrational things, why can't they just do X instead?" Because the human race isn't a single intelligent agent. It's a bunch of individuals with different ideas, goals, and cultures. Everyone is trying to get to their own local optima. It's amazing our species manages to organize and coordinate effectively at all at such a large scale. If you got rid of borders tomorrow, then what? What government should right the laws? Should we have one world government? No government? What type of government? Etc.

sspiff 13y ago

That's not entirely true. They have/had benefit for rulers. They serve to indicate which people one feudal lord can tax and press into his army, and which people shall be pressed into his neighbours army and pay him taxes. At the very least, when they're marked in treaties, they prevent some confusion and conflicts and give rise to others, depending on the agenda of the rulers involved. So they certainly have a use for someone, albeit a tiny but highly visible minority.

TausAmmer 13y ago
That I must agree on, useful they are. As torture equipment or napalm also serves a purpose.
- sspiff 13y ago
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I agree. Some people feel these things are useful, as damaging as they are to the vast majority of those involved.
  - TausAmmer 13y ago
    It can be sarcastic, but it is true and I don't think this should ever be discussed with sarcasm. One goes to drop bombs on someone else house because he is told so, nor man who drops the bombs nor family below benefits from it. But I can't find solution, humanity is defective in my eyes, almost fatally defective, it will survive and go on, but must come to absurd and dramatic turn that will bring it to knees and you have start again. And repeat, repeat repeat. Either I accept this as a part of the game or go insane.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

happyscrappy 13y ago

It is not a failing concept, it is the basis of all Western civilization. If you think there would be less violence and suffering without clear boundaries you are mistaken.

Joeri 13y ago
Isn't it because there weren't clear boundaries that there was so much war? Anyway, if people wish to muddle up a boundary for their own purposes, they will always find a way, claiming the will of the people to belong to a different country for example. Fundamentally, a nation state in the modern era is an administrative region and a form of identity. As a form of identity, it is very weak, because identity is a multi-faceted thing that cannot be reduced to as narrow a dimension as "country". As administrative regions, they have shown they prevent the efficient management of global resources by putting national interests before human interests. The notion of an independent nation-state is an outmoded concept in a globalized world. We need to move to a single global democracy. It's the only feasible form of government at this point when you look at the continuing inability of the big global players to agree on stuff that matters and avoid new armed conflicts.
- happyscrappy 13y ago
  >We need to move to a single global democracy. China and Russia would balk. But it hardly matters, the EU can't even agree.

Houshalter 13y ago

Because we haven't figured out a better way to organize society, let alone get people to adopt it. I hate all these "look at the human race doing irrational things, why can't they just do X instead?" Because the human race isn't a single intelligent agent. It's a bunch of individuals with different ideas, goals, and cultures. Everyone is trying to get to their own local optima. It's amazing our species manages to organize and coordinate effectively at all at such a large scale. If you got rid of borders tomorrow, then what? What government should right the laws? Should we have one world government? No government? What type of government? Etc.