There should be no borders separating nations, agree or disagree?

1. 69

   alexandriaruthkposted 10 years ago

   There should be no borders separating nations, agree or disagree?
   
   The fact that we have different nations, different interests, culture etc. Do you think that it is more better if we have no borders?

   replyreport
2. 67

   ThompsonPenposted 10 years ago

   from an equality stance, I agree. I think that every one should have the freedom to go where they want to go.
   However, boarders are marked territories, obviously. Each place has its own laws and ways, how do we separate them? Many laws might have to do with the general way a culture is, and it could be highly offensive to that culture should those laws not be respected. For example, in Thailand, I believe, it is offensive for a man and a woman to walk down the street holding hands.
   Boarders have a lot to do with economy, with tax revenue, and ruling all equating to money, but there is a subtext as well: it has a lot to do with preserving culture, which I think is very important.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Oneness is divine. But not when ego is in charge. Take a Hitler or a Stalin and put them in charge of a one-world government, you then have no refuge -- no escape. America is losing.

      replyreport
3. 0

   JThomp42posted 10 years ago

   Disagree.......................................................................................

   replyreport
4. 64

   maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

   Agree. We are living in a segregated world. As many white people have access to most countries in the world, colored people or people coming from poorer countries are more frequently subjects to visas or simple refusals!
   I personally love the multiplicity of races.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You do know that on Mexico's southern border they are very strict with controlling their border. That is not "white" people, but "brown" people stopping other "brown" people. Making it a racial issue is not realistic.

      replyreport
5. 70

   stanwshuraposted 10 years ago

   Yes!!  Thank you for your guts in "daring" to pose this anti-nationalistic question!  My answer is a vehement NO to any borders physical or political. 
   
   One *world*, ONE citizenry!

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A beautiful ideal, if something like Star Trek's Federation could be realized, but more than likely we'd end up with a Totalitarian state worse than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Explain how that could work. Explain how people would define their homes, towns, States and possessions. Be specific.

      replyreport
6. 65

   LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

   That's a Utopian view that sounds nice, but doesn't take into account that there are totalitarian dictatorships now, in the past and will be in the future that would subjugate otherwise free societies.  Where would the British be today had they not had borders with Nazi Germany ??? I think many people in border states on out southern border would disagree with you. They are often forced to live with the violence of Mexican drug cartels spilling across the border into their towns because of how poorly we choose to enforce out border,   A world with no borders is a world with one government with total authority.  In such a world, there is no place to escape to for asylum when the next Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevic, Hussein, Mao or any other megalomaniac comes to power.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent. There is some safety in diversity of viewpoints -- in democratic process. But America is losing this to homogenized Corporate Party media. Demopublicans look just like Republicrats. Voting is ignored for the convention script

      replyreport
   2. 65

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I wasn't suggesting, our system is perfect...but it is necessary to having competing gov't for the same reason it is necessary to have competing Shampoo products.  With only one option....quality goes down.

      replyreport
7. 58

   residentstoneposted 10 years ago

   Strongly disagree! If not you would have 7.5 billion people crammed into the USA, Canada, Australia and some parts of Europe. No thanks! I cant stand the people that are here now.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      WalterPoonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You can say that again, if you had been born in Ethiopia, LOL.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So you're really saying you would be cool with the Taliban and Al-quaeda moving right next door??? Sorry, I just don't get it.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      WalterPoonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Residentstone,  there will be no Taliban and Al-quaeda next door. If there were any, they would be in the next door prison.

      replyreport
   4. 58

      residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well if there were no borders they would be able to do that, no? There not in prison now, so why then? Sure all my rebuttals are extreme, but only to make a point. Careful what you wish for.

      replyreport
   5. 68

      WalterPoonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Residentstone, they are not in prison now because they are within their own borders and you can't do much with them when they are not within your borders.

      replyreport
   6. 58

      residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So now you're getting rid of borders to arrest people? One love brah!

      replyreport
8. 78

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   I think there should be borders, but those borders should not be governed by nations. The free flow of anything would be permissible as long as it never negatively impacted a neighbor. Borders are useful for allowing people to choose how they want to live without interference from others. For example, it would be good to have a border around indigenous people in the Amazon so that multi-national corporations couldn't come in, steal their resources, and leave behind a toxic waste dump.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Who, if not the sovereign nation or State itself, would determine what the borders would be? How would they be enforced? What of the tyrrant that wants to take from this "borderless" nation?

      replyreport
   2. 78

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Borders, by now, are pretty well set. They'd be enforced by a global democratic body. Tyrants would be squished if they tried.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, because the UN and their army of little blue helmets have done a great job in squishing global tyrants.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The UN and the world today have little resemblance to the model I had in mind, so isn't a useful comparison.

      replyreport
   5. 65

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Oh...I see...we need an even bigger global gov't bureaucracy with no place to escape to.  I guess it's a good thing they plan to colonize Mars in the next 10 yrs.  Unless they Statist have jurisdiction there as well.

      replyreport
   6. 78

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The "no place to escape to" is your own invention. Obviously I neither desire that or believe it would be the result. Since you have no interest in my proposal go burn strawmen elsewhere.

      replyreport
   7. 65

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I can't have an interest in something you haven't articulated any details on.  But from prior comments I would venture a guess that it involves more gov't  rather than less. If so, fortunately for you...it will probably happen in one form or another.

      replyreport
   8. 78

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So what if there was more government? It is only your opinion which equates government with ultimate evil and enslavement. Some government is bad does not mean all government is bad. Your projecting an opinion onto others as if it were a truth.

      replyreport
   9. 65

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I wasnt projecting an opinion, it was pretty clear that was my opinion. I was predicting that your solution would involve a larger gov't solution. Yet I have never known of a tyrannical regime that limited the role of gov't and empowered the indiv

      replyreport
9. 80

   cyoung35posted 10 years ago

   The only thing borders have done is cause war and death. Territory has only one purpose, to protect the natural resources they provide a country. When those resources are threatened then nations will do anything to protect them. If we all worked together we would be a much stronger world community. As it is now we don't all have the same views and beliefs here in the USA but we are united as one nation so why wouldn't this work for the world as a whole? The USA is a smaller version of the world, hence we call ourselves the melting pot.

   replyreport
10. 72

    lone77starposted 10 years ago

    I celebrate our diversity and our unique individuality. Why would you like to have everyone become the same? Do you really think for a minute that a one-world government would honor the liberties of the individual? If the government goes sour, where is your refuge? If they decide to raise the price of air, how will you breath if you don't have the money?
    
    Right now, we have a psychopathic elite trying to create a one-world government. They know how to wrap it in a nice package with a pretty bow, but underneath it all, we have tyranny that would make Hitler's Germany look like a Sunday school picnic.
    
    I loved Star Trek as a kid and its Federation, but now it is so clear that human ego would never create something that benign. The psychopath always seems to rise to the top. And the hero is always cut down by the CIA or something similar, looking out for the special interests of the Corporation and their owners.
    
    Sound cynical? Perhaps. But we have protection in our diversity of individuals and diversity of nations. In a democratic republic, we have the competition of ideas that keeps the bad hats honest or at least suppressed. But now we have "National Security" as a blanket for all of the crimes being committed.
    
    And we have a rapid erosion of liberties from things like HR 347, NDAA, the very unpatriotic "Patriot Act," and more. Now, the military can arrest you and throw you away forever, without a phone call, attorney, trial or even charges. You only need to be suspected of jeopardizing the national interests. Heaven help you if you become part of Obama's kill list.
    
    But what are those "national interests?" America has become the evil empire. And the way the Congress and President are spending money, it will be bankrupt in short order -- the national debt is $17 Trillion and accelerating toward a massive bubble burst. Just the kind of chaos that the psychotic elite are counting on so they can sell us the final "solution" -- a one-world government where the ordinary citizen is a slave in cracker box tenements. Only the elite have the freedom to choose their own lives. Don't think it can happen? ICLEI -- part of the UN plan for the 21st century -- is already preparing the way. And their plan calls for massive reductions in worldwide population down to about 500 million. So, 6+ billion of you have to go. Murdered. Massive genocide.
    
    No more borders? No more individuals. No more freedom. We trade the "evils" of borders for the "evil" of tyrannical "oneness."

    replyreport
11. 59

    LensMan999posted 10 years ago

    Ya, I always think in that manner. Why the world is divided into differnt nations, religions etc? If there are no borders, there would be love between nations and the conflicts that exist today won't have taken place. we could also have avoided the many wars that had taken place in the past.
    God created man to live together in peace. He didn't wish us to get separated in the manner we are now.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Um, yeah, ok. Borders are down. 40,000 Congolese rebels decide your neighborhood is nice. So they rape and murder your mom, sisters girlfriend/wife, take everything you own and burn your hood to the ground, then shoot you in the face. Then move on.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Explain how removing borders, whether national or home, would in any way bring about peace. Be specific.

       replyreport
    3. 70

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Residentstone, what you describe sounds a lot like Vietnam.  Or Guantanemo.

       replyreport
    4. 58

       residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Well Stan then go live in one of those places for a year. Let's say Yemen or Haiti, or yes the Democratic Republic of Congo and invite the whole country back to you're place since you love everyone so much. You and Sean Penn can have a barbecue.

       replyreport
    5. 70

       stanwshuraposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Cool.  And you're invited.  Here's hoping you could learn a thing or two from the experience.  I don't know if Penn can make it.   His boots are on the ground walking the walk and HE is getting things done.

       replyreport
    6. 58

       residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Whats Sean Penn doing? Fixing things that will be destroyed again next year? Good going stupid! There are 50 million people here in the good ole USA that could use his help. Just saying dude, we need borders like we need cops. Unfortunately.

       replyreport
12. 58

    lumen2lightposted 10 years ago

    Borders have their place. When it comes to culture, laws and way of life the border is the interface between two countries where one side is different to another.
    It would be nice to all live in one united world, but the reality is, people in the same country with the same laws, beliefs and culture cannot live in harmony. Any merger sees some getting everything and others losing everything. Removing borders will cause more conflict, not less.
    Having said that; on global issues, such as the environment, climate change and CO2 production the country borders should be totally removed. These things affect the world and everyone in it and we should all stand up and be counted for it.
    For example, the western world points the finger at China for producing too much CO2, yet almost 90% of the products made in China are shipped to the western world. If we still made these products in our country, not only would we have more jobs, we would not be pointing the finger at China for excessive CO2 production.

    replyreport
13. 68

    WalterPoonposted 10 years ago

    I think we should make borders illegal because the concept of nation should not exist at all. So yes, I think it's not only better, but it's more better, not to have borders at all!

    replyreport
    1. 68

       WalterPoonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Residentstone: "7.5 billion people crammed into the USA, Canada, Australia... No thanks! I cant stand the people that are here now."
       
       I suppose the Red Indians and the Maoris have more rights to say that than yourself,  Residentstone, LOL.

       replyreport
    2. 58

       residentstoneposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I dont know, wasnt alive for any of that. Not my fault, dont care.

       replyreport
14. 82

    Good Guyposted 10 years ago

    It is just an ideal dream.  If everyone can live in peace and harmony, how heavenly! But in reality, there are always evil people who will create havoc for humanity. How to have no border?

    replyreport
15. 58

    Angela Kaneposted 10 years ago

    Yes I agree if the nations are equal. If one nation is third world and the other is first world then the third world nations with their specific problems will most likely overrun the first world nations and create whole new problems. If all nations were equal I don't see how this would be an issue because most residents will stay in their respective countries and the all nations will grow economically.

    replyreport
16. 80

    Mitch Alanposted 10 years ago

    We should have borders. Whether it be the border of one's own home that they can and should protect or the borders of a State within a union of States that should have it's individual laws and customs protected by the constitutions enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment or a nation that protects against invasion, whether of a traditionally hostile nature or an overbearing influx of illegals. What would be the alternative? chaos? anarchy? dictatorship and conquest?
    If we were to abolish all existing borders today, then we would see new borders spring up tomorrow.

    replyreport
17. 68

    Jared Milesposted 10 years ago

    I would definitely say that there should be borders separating nations. There simply would be no way to properly manage the world's resources, and maintain different cultures etc. Cultures would potentially be swept away if the world was so unified that it united under a single banner, nice as that might sound.
    
    And what of pest control and proper resource allocation? While people talk of how it would be possible to feed all of the third world countries if other countries did this or that, there would be no way to properly manage where resources went, how they were used, and who they benefitted. Assuming customs is dissolved: Without customs control intent on protecting it's own borders, diseases unknown to parts of the world would spread and become everyone's problem all at once.
    
    In that same vein of thought, customs also exists to keep criminals in areas they can be controlled. If there were no borders, criminals, terrorists and all sorts of dangerous people could travel almost freely to any remote place in the world.
    
    But perhaps more importantly, there are places in the world whose culture survives simply because of it's isolation from the modern world, like tribes in South America. If the world became one big nation, the legislation protecting these people's land and heritage might very well be dissolved by some big overseas company with political powers.
    
    And that all begs the question of who would lead this giant nation?
    
    So I think borders should remain. Phew, that was some intense typing! :p

    replyreport
18. 53

    myeffortsposted 10 years ago

    I think we are doing it both ways in today's age. We have borders physically among different nations and countries but internet has played its role in bringing everyone of us together in this cyber world. Even here on hub pages, we can meet anyone from anywhere in the world. We can share anything we want with those from other parts of the world. We are therefore enjoying benefits of both having and not having borders.

    replyreport
19. 0

    krushnach80posted 10 years ago

    It is difficult  to decide  as we see today....is not just any sudden out come it's a massive human evolution process...which we see today...like races.cultures.religion..etc...yeah ..it would have been better but I think it would have be never the case unless all the human beings stayed at the same place from the day of their origin...

    replyreport
20. 60

    iAccuraposted 10 years ago

    There will be borders, but borders like we see in US for the states and national laws and regulations but travel wold be freely traveled.

    replyreport