Please help me understand the no border ideology

[Masha Sha]

This political ideology is gaining a lot of supporters. I need to understand the advantages and problems that such a world conception carry. I would like to know why some support and what would some gain of it and what would other lose. Thank you in advance, my aim is to have an open minded honnest discussion on the topic.

My current understanding, i hope that you wil be able to enlighten me on other perspectives and facts i don't see.

Positive i guess that the ideal of universal right to establish oneself where ever is interesting. Increase mobility opportunity, job seeking and competition opportunity, a more diverse cultural field and less restrictions.

Negative, i see that most breed like invasive species, slums and unsanitary living conditions expanding, security risks, the loss of cultural homogenity, most third world places got there because of their values what would prevent them to impose those everywhere they get dominance, the overcrowding of civilised places, lack of infrastructure and living spaces, the drop of job wages, the collapse of social and public services, the spread of roamers and bandits tribes.

Your turn...

Btw 5billions people have less average income than mexicans... it's a lot.

[GreenBits]

This political ideology is gaining a lot of supporters. I need to understand the advantages and problems that such a world conception carry. I would like to know why some support and what would some gain of it and what would other lose. Thank you in advance, my aim is to have an open minded honnest discussion on the topic.

My current understanding, i hope that you wil be able to enlighten me on other perspectives and facts i don't see.

Positive i guess that the ideal of universal right to establish oneself where ever is interesting. Increase mobility opportunity, job seeking and competition opportunity, a more diverse cultural field and less restrictions.

Negative, i see that most breed like invasive species, slums and unsanitary living conditions expanding, security risks, the loss of cultural homogenity, most third world places got there because of their values what would prevent them to impose those everywhere they get dominance, the overcrowding of civilised places, lack of infrastructure and living spaces, the drop of job wages, the collapse of social and public services, the spread of roamers and bandits tribes.

Your turn...

Btw 5billions people have less average income than mexicans... it's a lot.

I dont understand the need to preserve cultural homogenity. No cultures exist in a vacuum; and most cultures are smart enough to assimilate best practice/, most efficient methods from the culture it hosts (music, cuisine, language conventions, even fashion).  And out groups have no problem maintaining their culture when they are abroad, they cluster into communities to reinforce the parts of their culture they wish to keep.

So why do certain populist leaning politics have an appeal? Surely it's obvious that homogenity results in stagnation. Rather than stand alone, participate in the evolution of the whole.

[santaclaws]

I am all for a one world order/government. Good points so far.

I would argue that the people living in 3rd world countries would not migrate westward. Instead what would happen is development in their countries by the world's corporations. Why would they leave when they would have jobs building on their own land and cities.

As for bandits and thieves, well where is all the military spending going to go? I'm sure there will be some military to deal with terrorists but all that money that was being spent on military can now be used to stop crime.

[HabBear]

The negatives you identify are totally accurate. However the people that are biggest supporters of this ideology don't think about these sort of negative consequences. The supporters believe in utopia and being citizens of the world. The reality is that this existed in this world, thousands of years ago in the earliest days of Man. And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

[PeterTheGrape]

... the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

That is a good description of the problem, except for one thing.

"The same set of rules" that would work are of course not government rules, political rules dictated by a small group. "The same set of rules" has to be based on a broader more natural set of laws.

So, for example, "no borders" would not work if a person could be 'punished' on the basis of not having money or failing to respect those who do, being from a certain group, ethnicity race etc as a minority etc.

The only criteria that has to be universally respected is the actual infringement on somebody else's space. You are free to smoke anything, not free to blow the smoke toward somebody.

Ultimately 'no border' society evolves, it isn't imposed even by idealists unless they are masochists. Society started with only families at the dawn of humanity. Then families and clans. Then families, clans and tribes. Then families, clans, tribes and nations. Now we are at families, clans, tribes, nations and ideologies. If you try to step on a previous group though your 'ideology' will get eaten.

[mrcash02]

The negatives you identify are totally accurate. However the people that are biggest supporters of this ideology don't think about these sort of negative consequences. The supporters believe in utopia and being citizens of the world. The reality is that this existed in this world, thousands of years ago in the earliest days of Man. And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

I don't see those who claimed lands as bad, evil people trying to rule others. Who claimed lands needed to have security mechanisms to defend their land, what means they needed to be intelligent persons, able to create things and solve problems.

The biggest part of population wasn't (and isn't) able to do it, so they prefered just to be a "serf", to work for the lord land and have food and protection (these days things didn't change so much). Some people can say: "The lord land explored the other people"... But no, it didn't happen. He had the land and those people wanted to be there, it's a deal, if they were unhappy they could like by themselves on the forests, mountains or to find another land.

[PeterTheGrape]

... And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

I don't see those who claimed lands as bad, evil people trying to rule others. Who claimed lands needed to have security mechanisms to defend their land, what means they needed to be intelligent persons, able to create things and solve problems.

... if they were unhappy they could li[v]e by themselves on the forests, mountains or to find another land.

If a person takes enough land to live and does not kill those who settle nearby then all is good. But that is not the reality today. Some people own enough land for thousands of people, and many others own none.

Living in the forests or going to new places is not an easy option. You need to buy paper to not be harassed by police, you need to be careful of local customs to not get attacked for offending somebody's belief, etc.

No matter how good your intention may be, i.e., just to settle harmlessly somewhere and live your life, in most places you cannot do that because a) government employees will attack you and b) wealthy people who see you as a threat to their power will attack you and c) poor uneducated people who see you as a threat to their bliss will attack you.

Government is still necessary until education makes it not.

[mrcash02]

... And then some people got greedy and started claiming land as their own, killing people that walked through their land, and offering some food and land right payments to those (poorer people) who couldn't fend for themselves or preferred the protection of the local Lord of the Land. This turned into implementing more order and formality and government which turned into Countries.

I think the idea of no borders and being citizens of the world, all of us, is a great idea. But it requires that we all (billions of us) agree to the same set of rules and respect for other people...and punishment when people violate the rules. What does that sound like? Government.

I don't see those who claimed lands as bad, evil people trying to rule others. Who claimed lands needed to have security mechanisms to defend their land, what means they needed to be intelligent persons, able to create things and solve problems.

... if they were unhappy they could li[v]e by themselves on the forests, mountains or to find another land.

If a person takes enough land to live and does not kill those who settle nearby then all is good. But that is not the reality today. Some people own enough land for thousands of people, and many others own none.

Living in the forests or going to new places is not an easy option. You need to buy paper to not be harassed by police, you need to be careful of local customs to not get attacked for offending somebody's belief, etc.

No matter how good your intention may be, i.e., just to settle harmlessly somewhere and live your life, in most places you cannot do that because a) government employees will attack you and b) wealthy people who see you as a threat to their power will attack you and c) poor uneducated people who see you as a threat to their bliss will attack you.

Government is still necessary until education makes it not.

I was talking about the middle ages and before. The beginning of our society. Today is similar on some aspects, but the humanity evolved, technology evolved, everything evolved...

We can't live in 2017 like nomads and forest-bush people.

[Mometaskers]

This political ideology is gaining a lot of supporters. I need to understand the advantages and problems that such a world conception carry. I would like to know why some support and what would some gain of it and what would other lose. Thank you in advance, my aim is to have an open minded honnest discussion on the topic.

My current understanding, i hope that you wil be able to enlighten me on other perspectives and facts i don't see.

Positive i guess that the ideal of universal right to establish oneself where ever is interesting. Increase mobility opportunity, job seeking and competition opportunity, a more diverse cultural field and less restrictions.

Negative, i see that most breed like invasive species, slums and unsanitary living conditions expanding, security risks, the loss of cultural homogenity, most third world places got there because of their values what would prevent them to impose those everywhere they get dominance, the overcrowding of civilised places, lack of infrastructure and living spaces, the drop of job wages, the collapse of social and public services, the spread of roamers and bandits tribes.

Your turn...

Btw 5billions people have less average income than mexicans... it's a lot.

I dont understand the need to preserve cultural homogenity. No cultures exist in a vacuum; and most cultures are smart enough to assimilate best practice/, most efficient methods from the culture it hosts (music, cuisine, language conventions, even fashion).  And out groups have no problem maintaining their culture when they are abroad, they cluster into communities to reinforce the parts of their culture they wish to keep.

So why do certain populist leaning politics have an appeal? Surely it's obvious that homogenity results in stagnation. Rather than stand alone, participate in the evolution of the whole.

I don't believe homogeneity would result in stagnation. Look at Japan and Korea. They are some of the most homogeneous countries around  and they are doing just fine. They managed to survive without all these multiculturalism shit.

Multiculturalism would only benefit the larger society if the minorities are willing to assimilate to the larger population. Instead, what we are seeing are ghettos. Though not necessarily bad on their own, it does lead some to feeling "different" from the society they live in. I guess Singapore have set a good example with their racial/ethnic integration policies to ensure that its Han, Malay and Indian population are  mixed together. Europeans would probably cringe at the mere mention of it though, cause you know, rights...

Open borders in western Europe used to work because despite the varying languages the people have some degree of cultural affinity with each other. Unfortunate that it was hijacked.

[PeterTheGrape]

...
If you walk into the wilderness and establish your own society... but it will probably take you and your descendants many thousands of years to build your society back up to the level that we are at today.

...

You have it backwards.

Society tries to get to where one person in the wilderness is, but society is hampered by technology and other fake appendages.

A person who leaves society does not strive to create the disease they had in society. Look at the Amish and many other very civilized groups whose laws are more natural. They don't ask for paper and they don't offer it. If our modern society were made of people who could live on their own, without gangsterism, there would not be any discussion needed.

[dondexter]

In the name of globalization.. somewhere in the future, maybe a hundred years, maybe a thousand, the world will almost definitely be globalized and will have much less restrictions.

[olubams]

Any global ideology that relates to politics from my own point of view will not work. Other areas might work such as security or finance or accounts but  not politics because how do we even start from the majority of Whites that are racist not even considering the people from the Islamic countries, not even countries that are against the West with everything within them among other factors that will negate such movement.

[PeterTheGrape]

You have it backwards.

Society tries to get to where one person (starving in isolation) in the wilderness is, but society is hampered by (selfish desires and self-gain) technology and other fake appendages.

A person who leaves society does not strive to create the disease they had in society. Look at the Amish and many other very civilized groups whose laws are more natural. They don't ask for paper and they don't offer it. If our modern society were made of people who could live on their own, without gangsterism, there would not be any discussion needed.

A man who is starving in isolation out in the wilderness can gain possession of his own soul, his own free will, his own share of god. It is much easier for a man to overcome his sinful desires while he is starving in isolation because he possesses his own willpower. Society tries to achieve this through growth, by possessing greater numbers of new souls (more children, more births, more expansion, more invasion). When jesus fasted for forty days in the desert he was able to perform miraculous feats but as soon as he began eating again in a social environment he slowly began losing power. And when the cops put hands on him and imprisoned him, I imagine the roman empire took complete possession of his free will.

The amish are much less sinful than the rest of america, so they don't have as much opposition or punishment to worry about. They don't have to live in fear of being invaded or seized by enemies. Look what happens to people who regularly use heroin or methamphetamine. They always end up losing their jobs/homes/savings/families. That's an example of spiritual forces working their magic, causing people to suffer for their sins.

If you are going to change somebody's quotes so dramatically you should remove their name first. You can just put the word quote in blocks

If you are going to change somebody's quotes so dramatically you should remove their name first. You can just put the word quote in blocks

Food is just one aspect of a person's lower nature. Regardless, a person has a living nature that exists in a physical form whether the person is 'alone in the wilderness', or in the middle of a crowd.

The amish, like most groups who respect nature, were persecuted out of their original locations. http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/fromoldtonew.htm

The amish are smart and know that the first sentence of your last paragraph is nonsense. They live healthy lives but because their ideas of health are different than the prevalent gang they are cautious regarding threats from 'opposition or punishment'. A person who "does as the Romans do" is safe in Rome. Those who try to live apart have to be careful.

Heroin / meth / etc are not healthy, but anything can be ascribed to 'spiritual forces'. Those drugs are expensive and illegal, society charges an extra price for them. In places where opium is legal but discouraged informally you see much less harm.

In our society there are much more unhealthy things than drugs, but which are not discouraged or may even be encouraged. The price for those things is not so immediate and obvious. Would you call the lack of a price imposed by society "spiritual forces working their magic"? Of course not. You are confusing government with some deity.

[PeterTheGrape]

Any global ideology that relates to politics from my own point of view will not work. Other areas might work such as security or finance or accounts but  not politics because how do we even start from the majority of Whites that are racist not even considering the people from the Islamic countries, not even countries that are against the West with everything within them among other factors that will negate such movement.

A person should look for flaws near them, not faraway.

You want to blame "whites" for human nature that everybody has and you want to give credit to "islamic countries" likewise for human things.

The problem is not 'whites' or 'islamic', the problem is people through ignorance try to blame 'white' or 'islamic' people for flaws everybody has.

[GreenBits]

You have it backwards.

Society tries to get to where one person (starving in isolation) in the wilderness is, but society is hampered by (selfish desires and self-gain) technology and other fake appendages.

A person who leaves society does not strive to create the disease they had in society. Look at the Amish and many other very civilized groups whose laws are more natural. They don't ask for paper and they don't offer it. If our modern society were made of people who could live on their own, without gangsterism, there would not be any discussion needed.

A man who is starving in isolation out in the wilderness can gain possession of his own soul, his own free will, his own share of god. It is much easier for a man to overcome his sinful desires while he is starving in isolation because he possesses his own willpower. Society tries to achieve this through growth, by possessing greater numbers of new souls (more children, more births, more expansion, more invasion). When jesus fasted for forty days in the desert he was able to perform miraculous feats but as soon as he began eating again in a social environment he slowly began losing power. And when the cops put hands on him and imprisoned him, I imagine the roman empire took complete possession of his free will.

The amish are much less sinful than the rest of america, so they don't have as much opposition or punishment to worry about. They don't have to live in fear of being invaded or seized by enemies. Look what happens to people who regularly use heroin or methamphetamine. They always end up losing their jobs/homes/savings/families. That's an example of spiritual forces working their magic, causing people to suffer for their sins.

I perceived the power of fasting in the Bible as a result of no distraction. The isolation allows one to be closer to God, to align yourself with his will. When you are on the same path, you gain access to all of the things one needs to navigate the path

Also, substance is spiritual gravity. Mammon is all substance; our concern for our substance is what usually makes us sin. You surround yourself with substance, you suffer the woes of substance. Society hovers somewhere between spirituality and substance, a partial construct of both. It, like all things, can be a distraction.

[Eternu]

This political ideology is gaining a lot of supporters. I need to understand the advantages and problems that such a world conception carry. I would like to know why some support and what would some gain of it and what would other lose. Thank you in advance, my aim is to have an open minded honnest discussion on the topic.

My current understanding, i hope that you wil be able to enlighten me on other perspectives and facts i don't see.

Positive i guess that the ideal of universal right to establish oneself where ever is interesting. Increase mobility opportunity, job seeking and competition opportunity, a more diverse cultural field and less restrictions.

Negative, i see that most breed like invasive species, slums and unsanitary living conditions expanding, security risks, the loss of cultural homogenity, most third world places got there because of their values what would prevent them to impose those everywhere they get dominance, the overcrowding of civilised places, lack of infrastructure and living spaces, the drop of job wages, the collapse of social and public services, the spread of roamers and bandits tribes.

Your turn...

Btw 5billions people have less average income than mexicans... it's a lot.

I think you are right. There are many good things that people could get by creating world without borders, and maybe that is the future. If people could move freely from one place to another, that could solve a lot of difficulties for some people. But it would also mean that there would be unwanted people in some places, and it would create chaos. Some places would be overpopulated and some would be dead, with no people to live there. I am not sure if it would be good or bad, there would need to be some kind of restriction, but that is not without border than...

[PeterTheGrape]

... The isolation allows one to be closer to God, to align yourself with his will. When you are on the same path, you gain access to all of the things one needs to navigate the path

...

That is an interesting idea, the problem it will cause for some people though is when it is taken literally.

Very primitive people often have concrete gods, solid beings that have wills, desires, everything a person has.

More developed theologies emphasize that it is a fatal mistake to describe any aspect of a spiritual thing, including the concept of 'god'. The reason being that there is the dualistic world, which is physical and includes words, and the spiritual world which is not dualistic. There are some bridges between the two, like religion, archetypes, symbols etc, but when dualism is used to describe spiritual things there are the hunters who observe quietly and learn, and the hunted, who make the noise. It's explained here https://youtu.be/I7e9vnwTjJA?t=1m1s

More spiritual wisdom at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgxGK2GOcQQ

If a person needs spiritual help they can watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73v0XWnDxK8 but do not dial the number on the screen, +1 800 433 1900 unless you have your credit card out.

[gentlemand]

I would argue that the people living in 3rd world countries would not migrate westward. Instead what would happen is development in their countries by the world's corporations. Why would they leave when they would have jobs building on their own land and cities.

If I was living in a barrel filled with shit in Guinea Bissau and the world's borders were thrown open, would I wait 15-30 years for my barrel of shit to dry out or move to New York tomorrow?

I'd go for NY. The average person wants it all now and why not?

[Tyrantt]

Thing like that could never live up to the idea. With the ideology like that, culture and nationality would be somewhat lost and I personally wouldn't like that. I'm not for those hippie ideas that propose that all people should and can live all together in harmony... sorry, but that's nearly impossible and I don't want to get into discussion now because I'm tired and also, everyone should be able to see why it's a stupid idea. The first thing that should come to mind is the mass immigration, just look at the immigrant "crisis" but on a whole another level where everyone from the poor countries and regions would rush to the rich ones. I've always found hippies to be stupid with the ideas.

[darkangel11]

I'm against the idea. Equality is a myth, people are different, speak different languages and have different beliefs.
Now consider two things:
Some people will feel like it's their land and consider themselves natives.
There will be newcomers, migrants, that will have completely different values, unacceptable to the native population.

This will eventually lead to a segregation, with one of the communities being bound to enclosed settlements, or civil war. You just can't have open borders or people will start killing each other.