Let's destroy the borders - All of them

[Flying Pig]

Remember Ancient Greece, it was the relatively small size of the city states that enabled them to have a special sense of belonging to an atomic (not divisible) group, and flourish in it. Now take massive states such as the mongol empire; as soon as their thirst for keeping expanding was ended, they collapsed or became very backward entities, which is true for the ottoman empire as well.

Those empires collapsed because they were simply too big for the government to exercise effective sovereignty over them. If you think how heavily consolidated the Roman Empire was - with its road networks, military garrisons and governors with direct links to the Emperor, for example - and how often it fragmented in its early stages, it becomes apparent that empires such as the Macedonian and Mongol never had a chance. The city-states are just modern nations in minature - even then they had the concept of hellas as demonstrated almost every time Greece was invaded by some external power. Improvements to communications enabled the Greeks to feel like one nation by the time of Ottoman rule. The same happened in England, which was a mess of feuding tribes when Caesar found the place and has since merged into one ethnic group - the English are just 'English' and bear no more basic national identity.

 

[Dachs]

Remember Ancient Greece, it was the relatively small size of the city states that enabled them to have a special sense of belonging to an atomic (not divisible) group, and flourish in it. Now take massive states such as the mongol empire; as soon as their thirst for keeping expanding was ended, they collapsed or became very backward entities, which is true for the ottoman empire as well.

Historically, the classical Greeks were outrageously fratricidal even with this ostensible panhellenic sentiment. Whether it was in the shadows of the Hindu Kush or back home in the Peloponnesos or along the Nile or wherever, Greeks just loved to kill other Greeks and to hell with the consequences.

Of course, ascribing any sort of protonationalistic sentiment to anybody back then is loltacular

 

[JerichoHill]

Actually, near total integration of the monetary system was done before in the form of the gold standard. You could view that as a failure, though it certainly wasn't the integration part that made it a failure.

I am fairly certain that was an idealized unification but in reality, it wasn't. And further, countries still went on their own economic paths regardless (I don't think French and Spanish were working together alot in all those wars against each other while they were on the gold standard.

 

[Artifis]

I like the idea of city states. The system should vary depending on where on the planet it is. Not all cultures and places are the same. Personally I like the ancient system we had in Scandinavia. People where grouped into communities where all citizens to gather every year for an equivalent of a county fair. Important issues where solved their and leaders appointed. Trails where held in public in front of the citizens.

My system for keeping an economy local is to have a kilometer tax. Get rid of the sales tax and put a 0,05% tax on every kilometer a product is transported. When economies are local, the consumers are the workers and the bosses live in the same town and the workers and bosses children go to the same schools people won't cheat, people will take more responsibility. This means less regulation.

It seems as if you're advocating a very insular sort of world where differences are fostered and strengthened. I'd say that such a situation would create more chances for misunderstanding.

Because Koreans have different needs, wants, and considerations than the Dutch. Thus they have two different governments.

It's the same reason why the city you live in has different management than the city 2 hours away, or wherever. People like being ruled by people who understand local needs.

So why not do it in a federalised way? Much like how Germany works, or the USA? You decentralise power, but are still ultimately under one government?

 

[Tahuti]

I am fairly certain that was an idealized unification but in reality, it wasn't.

True, and that was in part because of mercantilism. Ideological dogma at the time demanded that countries weren't allowed to export bullion. When Spain conquered the New World, the massive amounts of bullion they brought in caused enormous inflation in Spain, though the very same bullion could buy alot in France. Exporting bullion would have slowed down that inflation, but as it was against ideological dogma at the time and against the interests of the ruling classes who owned the gold - the same bullion was worth a lot more in France and England after all, this obviously didn't happen.

And further, countries still went on their own economic paths regardless (I don't think French and Spanish were working together alot in all those wars against each other while they were on the gold standard.

In the mercantilist era, "French gold" and "Spanish gold" had a different source and an ounce of gold/silver bullion differed in purchasing power from country to country. When export of gold was legalized in most countries by the 19th century, this was largely rendered moot. Countries still went different paths of course, but no country could really influence the money supply in a significant way.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

It seems as if you're advocating a very insular sort of world where differences are fostered and strengthened. I'd say that such a situation would create more chances for misunderstanding.



So why not do it in a federalised way? Much like how Germany works, or the USA? You decentralise power, but are still ultimately under one government?

It is called diversity.

Federal states tend to take power. The coal and steel union turned into a pseudo country.

 

[warpus]

So why not do it in a federalised way? Much like how Germany works, or the USA? You decentralise power, but are still ultimately under one government?

Yep, sure, but that's a totally different point than the one I was responding to.

We'll have a world government eventually, but not for quite a while.

 

[Winner]

A horrible convergence of the first and second point is when Switzerland banned the construction of minarets. This was one of the posters used to garner support for the vote (note the similarities between minarets and missile warheads):

Best election poster ever.

 

[NetGear]

So why not do it in a federalised way? Much like how Germany works, or the USA? You decentralise power, but are still ultimately under one government?

That's probably how world govt will be in the future, but remember that US too took 2nd attempt to get it right. Decentralized yet under one overseeing govt is a tricky balance and its probably not doable at this time.

 

[innonimatu]

Well you've basically summed up my criticism of my own idealism, in that humanity is inherently incapable of the peace I sometimes dream about.

Oh, I wouldn't say inherently incapable of peace. We've seen long periods of peace already, in some large regions at least. I wouldn't even say that political borders are a requirement for ever, only for our modern form of state. We can, we probably will, evolve other forms. But that's still uncharted territory.

Really? You're using this as a justification for not aiming for a world government. That somehow this society of psychopaths is the big evil. I do wonder how you came to that conclusion.

You've criticised my idealism on the grounds that it isn't pragmatic. But why should the attempt to implement it necessarily lead to a psychopathic society? There's a link missing in here.

I was talking about society and social groups there, not about political geographical entities. The key thing with society is that it requires trust between its members. Humans may even be trustful of strangers by default, and strangers may even be well-meaning to each other by default (I'm not going to argue over that), but the simple fact that different people are different, think differently and have different wishers and views of the world, leads to clashes, and undermines trust. And so in every society smaller groups form, according to levels of trust in particular subject matter. Those are the social borders I was talking about. They are absolutely essential, as those hippie groups of the 60s trying out their "communities" discovered to their dismay ans sorrow. Trying to do away with them leads to catastrophe, as the psychopaths then get a free run, and everyone else has to adopt the same defensive behaviors: trust collapses and so does society.

 

[Rashiminos]

People do not want to be indoctrinated under laws and customs against their will. Forcefully breaking down these barriers is an attempt to subjugate them in the best imperial practices. Peace takes more effort, and often more time.

 

[innonimatu]

Exactly. Borders are a good thing, borders empower people to make choices about what they like and what they don't like, what they wish to join and what they wish to keep away from.

As with all things they can be misused. People getting locked into borders created by others, people getting born inside "closed", fixed borders. But that's no reason to throw the baby away with the water.

 

[Winner]

You guys do realize that until all parts of the globe are more or less on the same level economically, socially, and politically, no such "universalist" proposal has the tiniest chance of succeeding?

 

[Glassmage]

Put more borders up! The Muslims deserve to die in the unholy deserts of Middle East.

Moderator Action: Not an appropriate post for CFC.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Winner]

You know, the last time round they nearly conquered and destroyed the Western civilization, so maybe the borders are there for a reason. And the Mediterranean. Thank Allah for it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Link to video.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

What would happen if one area didn't want to be a part of your new world order? Would you invade them? It would probably lead to many revolts and Afghanistan like wars.

If you didn't how would globalisation work? Their laws would be different. They could act as a tax haven and make a living off that but at the same time undermine your economy.

 

[Artifis]

Exactly. Borders are a good thing, borders empower people to make choices about what they like and what they don't like, what they wish to join and what they wish to keep away from.

As with all things they can be misused. People getting locked into borders created by others, people getting born inside "closed", fixed borders. But that's no reason to throw the baby away with the water.

Now I recognise that borders (social borders, mind) are a necessity. But perhaps I should've clarified my thread when I said that I was referring to political borders. I do not not deny that there will always be different groups of people, but what I don't like are these differences being institutionalised in political borders. They should be porous.

What would happen if one area didn't want to be a part of your new world order? Would you invade them? It would probably lead to many revolts and Afghanistan like wars.

If you didn't how would globalisation work? Their laws would be different. They could act as a tax haven and make a living off that but at the same time undermine your economy.

I'm not sure I get your point here. No I wouldn't invade them, we've seen what happens when you try to invade a country to implement a new order. It has to be a willing thing, but I don't see that happening any time soon..

 

[Camikaze]

There will always be political borders. Simply for administrative purposes, and that's a good thing. There is a border for my local council area, defining where my local council holds responsibility. I think what you're angling for is making national borders less significant in terms of identity. That's a reaosnable thing to want, I think, but it's different to wanting to get rid of political borders completely. So long as there is governance, there is going to be a need for organisational constructs of some form or another, and the best way I can think of doing that is geographically. What superior ways are there of creating administrative divisions?