Let's destroy the borders - All of them

[Tee Kay]

This isn't done by flying people and goods all over the planet and importing people to countries that use a lot of resources.

I believe in both sustainable environmental management and also in giving people the best quality of life. The only way for both to be sustained together in the long term is global cooperation.

Sitting bull would disagree and so would dali lama.

Sitting Bull would be happy if the freedom and security of his people were guaranteed, their rights to live on their land recognised, and they were at peace with their neighbours. I won't speak for His Holiness but he's still alive so if you want you can send him a link to this thread and ask him what he thinks.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

1) Isn't America essentially a country where people from all over the world came together to create a new culture? Something called The American Culture? I don't see them calling themselves Soviets.

And what happend? How many speak the same language as their none English speaking ancestors? How strong is bulgarian culture? American culture is MTV and Mcdonalds. Not exactly what I want to see the worlds ethnic diversity replaced with.

Going back to the USA, although there's something called The American Culture, nobody in their right minds would say that all Americans are the same. America is in no way a homogeneous country. They speak many different languages there, and have vastly differing cultures. But do you see them trying to go to war with each other?

One third of all males of a certain ethnic group have been or will be in prison at some point in their life.

Also, no since you killed so much of the diversity.

2) So you're now talking about intellectual diversity. What makes you so sure my ideal situation would destroy intellectual diversity? Let's take one supposedly homogeneous people: the Han Chinese. Can you tell me that they are one blob with no differing ideas? Are there only a few newspapers? For all the censorship, there are still newspapers which criticise the government.

Of course there are differences, I don't believe that there should be one China, I am against the nation state. Native Americans are a perfect example of what happens when you let foreigners in. The Mayans disappeared. Their language is gone, their religion is gone, their culture is gone. Once great civilizations are now run by druggangs.

In America there's Democrat vs Republican. They're all American, and they would never think of splitting America up, but can you tell me that they're all the same? The bloody debacle in Congress is going totally against that.

a republican and a democrat are way more similar than a republican and a person in the kongo. Even so, these small differences lead to conflict.

3) If local freedom gives people the right to hate another group just because they're a different group, I'm not sure it's a freedom I'd support.

People shouldn't hate, multicultralism is hate. It is when ethnic groups get in eachothers way that they kill eachother. Tribes in Africa kill eachother. When did an african tribe last go kill people from Chile? They don't since they aren't in their way.

So what are you suggesting? That we keep all peoples of differing cultures physically apart? You know as well as I do that that isn't tenable at all.

Also, the EU is coming apart not because of the idea but because of the implementation.

Having local independent communities.

Soviet union failed, Rome failed, the big empires failed, the ottoman Empire failed. Eventually either all groups are destroyed or the state falls apart.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I believe in both sustainable environmental management and also in giving people the best quality of life. The only way for both to be sustained together in the long term is global cooperation.

And this is done by shipping goods half way around the planet because there are slacker labour laws in certain parts?

 

[Tee Kay]

Native Americans are a perfect example of what happens when you let foreigners in.

The American Indian experience and immigration or multiculturalism are not comparable.

The Mayans disappeared. Their language is gone, their religion is gone, their culture is gone.

Two out of three is false.

People shouldn't hate, multicultralism is hate.

Huh... buwah... what?

Soviet union failed, Rome failed, the big empires failed, the ottoman Empire failed. Eventually either all groups are destroyed or the state falls apart.

All things are impermanent. This is a fact of life. If you think listing past empires as examples of how multiculturalism fails... well, it's not very effective, for two reasons: most weren't multicultural societies, and most were pretty long lasting (the classic "failure" case, the Ottoman Empire, lasted six hundred years).

And this is done by shipping goods half way around the planet because there are slacker labour laws in certain parts?

I support raising labour standards worldwide and an international unions movement. So yeah.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I found a very interesting article by a Pilipino political scientist Siryako Akda:
<article removed>

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-new-right-and-what-it-can-offer-the-rest-of-the-world/

Moderator Action: Please refer to rule 6 in the OT Additional Rules:

6b. For that same link, do NOT quote entire articles. Quote a few sentences, a paragraph or two, TOPS. This avoids copyright issues and helps give some focus to your thread. Initial offenders will be closed with an opportunity to retry. Repeat offenders will receive infractions.

Feel free to edit in an abridged version.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kristopherb]

Absolutely no for many reasons.

3) It would require the same laws everywhere. This means that the world would need to be ruled by a world government. No one would ever agree on policy, the policy would be wrong for different parts of the world and it would destroy local freedom.

You have a point but if it was devolved much like the states to the federal govt are then all is well and your point is moot.

This is all good stuff and i love the idea of democracy, on one level and representation at the other but the thing we would be trying to abolish borders and nations in its current state it will be extremely hard to implement and require a lot of planning. We'd have the far right using this as propaganda for their cause making them even more extreme and I won't even start with barbaric religions we'd need to accommodate for.
This does seem extreme and blue sky thinking, though it is possible using the internet, but how many people at the current state want to be equal to people that consider there life to be expendable and walk into crowded places with explosive attached.
Other questions are How would we get to that stage? with out taking extreme actions, How would that stage work down to every detail.

The barrier, I'm afraid to say is too big. This is coming from a socialist....

 

[Kyriakos]

Also look at the EU, which essentially (in theory, or at least in idealism) was an attempt to unite all or most of Europe into one """state""": there does not seem to be much of a feeling of pan-europeanism around to allow even for helping other nations in time of crisis, and we watch the southern half of Europe slowly but steadily going to hell.
I think that it would have made MUCH more sense to first start forming smaller and historically based supra-national entities.

Then again this might just be my slightly covert attempt to re-institute the Byzantine empire

 

[Veles]

...Then again this might just be my slightly covert attempt to re-institute the Byzantine empire

I have no objections But no Bulgaria, Yugoslavia or Macediona in it this time, sorry. But be sure to get Albania and South Caucasus. This would be proper Empire.

 

[Kyriakos]

I have no objections But no Bulgaria, Yugoslavia or Macediona in it this time, sorry. But be sure to get Albania and South Caucasus. This would be proper Empire.

:\ Everyone knows that the following is the most characteristic form of said Empire:



But this is off-topic

 

[Flying Pig]

Baloney. What if the society has been set up by an educated populace explicitly trying to keep the society a libertarian one?

Happened in Athens repeatedly, most notably in 404 BC, and many times in Republican Rome - Sulla did it first and hardest, but Caesar made it last. Both of these were democracies set up by cultured people in the name of freedom, which had constitutions designed to maintain that freedom, and which were completely torn up and disregarded by would-be dictators.

 

[Veles]

:\ Everyone knows that the following is the most characteristic form of said Empire.

Yes, but times have changed. All Slavs will be re-united with Russia soon So you no can has them. Don't worry, they'll all be converted to Orthodoxy You should focus on the eastern infidels instead.

But this is off-topic

wuteva

 

[Tee Kay]

Good grief.

Byzies.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Excuse me, I seem to have forgotten my shock. Let me make an attempt to feign it.

Absolutely no for many reasons.

1) It is global genocide. All cultures and ethnic groups would eventually disappear and be replaced by a global lowest common denominator. There would be no Tibet, there would be no Africa there would be no Europe. Just a giant blob of new soviet citizens.

The US has many different cultures within it. Yes, there is a lot of interwoven factors, but I myself enjoy that. You can't ride grandpa's horse, gotta get your own.

2) It would destroy diversity. There would soon be monopoly situations where there are a few newspapers, a few restaurant chains and a few car manufacturers. The same books would be promoted everywhere.

This argument just flat out doesn't make sense. Moving on.

3) It would require the same laws everywhere. This means that the world would need to be ruled by a world government. No one would ever agree on policy, the policy would be wrong for different parts of the world and it would destroy local freedom.

The NWO would handle issues facing the entire planet. Most things could be settled on a local level with direct democracy. The NWO would probably, most likely, handle basic framework for the world's society. Imagine an apartment building. The one providing it has certain floorplans that you can't change, but they don't tell you what posters you can hang up.

 

[Leoreth]

The problem is, people are more interested in their own benefit than that of others. That's (unfortunately) true for most individuals and by extension, all kinds of groups made up of people, no matter if it's social or ethnic or national groups.

I don't want to simplify too much here, but if you want to keep it short, most of the time it boils down to simple game theory. Cooperating requires making compromises. So even if cooperating is beneficial for both sides compared to competing, continuing to compete while the other side is willing to compromise is often even more beneficial. So cooperation requires a lot of trust, else you risk ending up weaker than before when you try to initiate cooperation.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Hutus vs Tutsis

Lived in the same country, without borders.

 

[Flying Pig]

Lived in the same country, without borders.

Social borders, lad.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Social borders, lad.

Thanks, I wasn't sure what the OP meant by border.

Well, my $0.02 is that differences between people are a good thing. As John Locke pointed out, knowledge varies from one person to another - therefore, it's necessary to recognise that differences are inevitable and to tolerate those differences.

The OP's idea would not only fail to solve the problem but would actively make it worse. We have evolved these differences to serve more needs than just conflict.

 

[civver_764]

Happened in Athens repeatedly, most notably in 404 BC, and many times in Republican Rome - Sulla did it first and hardest, but Caesar made it last. Both of these were democracies set up by cultured people in the name of freedom, which had constitutions designed to maintain that freedom, and which were completely torn up and disregarded by would-be dictators.

The systems of Athens and the Roman Republic are in no way what I'm advocating, at all. To claim there was no hierarchy present in them is absurd.

 

[Flying Pig]

The systems of Athens and the Roman Republic are in no way what I'm advocating, at all. To claim there was no hierarchy present in them is absurd.

Their fates do however demonstrate that a freedom-loving system set up by educated people who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it that way isn't immune to being completely destroyed.

 

[GoodGame]

Bottom line is that the world is full of cultures that want political protection for their cultures and ways of life. Hence we have borders.