A world without borders?

[Spendulus]

Although in many terms one may call me a globalist, but I disagree on the idea of a world without any borders lol. Simply because a world without any borders would be played on the assumption that all ethnicity and all individuals will be equally open minded and not be conservative and live in harmony and such a broad assumption is expected to be more hazardous than we can imagine and it may even lead to a globalised civil war. So, I would never support such ideas until we have the technology to know what is in people's heart as maybe in their hearts they still prefer their ethnicity as most superior

It's great idea, I agree, but not for our time.
I believe that this will happen in the future, but in a very distant future, perhaps 1,000 or more years.
Right now, such idea is not realistic because people are not mature enough and we have a lot conflicts, different cultures and traditions and people have not yet learned to accept differences.
I think we will first have to create a unique world culture and tradition.

This kind of talk is utter nonsense.

Simplifying your response, it becomes....

"It's a very bad idea."

[Daniel91]

Although in many terms one may call me a globalist, but I disagree on the idea of a world without any borders lol. Simply because a world without any borders would be played on the assumption that all ethnicity and all individuals will be equally open minded and not be conservative and live in harmony and such a broad assumption is expected to be more hazardous than we can imagine and it may even lead to a globalised civil war. So, I would never support such ideas until we have the technology to know what is in people's heart as maybe in their hearts they still prefer their ethnicity as most superior

It's great idea, I agree, but not for our time.
I believe that this will happen in the future, but in a very distant future, perhaps 1,000 or more years.
Right now, such idea is not realistic because people are not mature enough and we have a lot conflicts, different cultures and traditions and people have not yet learned to accept differences.
I think we will first have to create a unique world culture and tradition.

This kind of talk is utter nonsense.

Simplifying your response, it becomes....

"It's a very bad idea."

You have the right to your opinion, of course.
Still, it is difficult to give a concrete answer to such a general and hypothetical question.
Borders and countries exist already about ten thousand years in human history, more or less, and will continue to exist until we solve some fundamental issues in our civilization like security, protection of national and religious values, protection from migrants etc.

[Spendulus]

Although in many terms one may call me a globalist, but I disagree on the idea of a world without any borders lol. Simply because a world without any borders would be played on the assumption that all ethnicity and all individuals will be equally open minded and not be conservative and live in harmony and such a broad assumption is expected to be more hazardous than we can imagine and it may even lead to a globalised civil war. So, I would never support such ideas until we have the technology to know what is in people's heart as maybe in their hearts they still prefer their ethnicity as most superior

It's great idea, I agree, but not for our time.
I believe that this will happen in the future, but in a very distant future, perhaps 1,000 or more years.
Right now, such idea is not realistic because people are not mature enough and we have a lot conflicts, different cultures and traditions and people have not yet learned to accept differences.
I think we will first have to create a unique world culture and tradition.

This kind of talk is utter nonsense.

Simplifying your response, it becomes....

"It's a very bad idea."

You have the right to your opinion, of course.
Still, it is difficult to give a concrete answer to such a general and hypothetical question.
....

Actually, that's my very point. It's the easiest thing in the world to answer a poorly phrased or worded question. The answer is "NO" and there's no need whatsoever to develop a nuanced answer. The problem is with the statement as posed.

Let's reduce it to some simple real world analogies.

(A) Shall we take down the fence between Israel and Palestine within one year?

(B) Between N and S Korea, within five years?

(C) Between Mexico and the USA, within ten years?

These can be debated.

[kotajikikox]

If the world has no boarder the world will be called as one nation.why does it happens that there is so many country now.if you believe in bible God did to seperate people from each other.people did not listen and not obey of what God said.because of that people dont understand each other so for a few people they spread and seperate each other and do there own lives.so now theres a lot of nation now having a boarder because they want there own lives.they also wants there own property and do there own belief and law.
For me if theres no boarder we are in one nation,only one leader to follow no need for passport you can go where ever you want.

If no boarder no nation can be called a poor or a rich country because we can called as one.

But for now it is impossible to do this as one nation all over the world.

[BADecker]

Trump and his buddies figured out a novel way to stop border crossings. But it's gonna affect us all in some unique and unexpected ways. 


"If You Weren't Worried Before, Worry Now"

Don't get me wrong. Up until this morning I was going to say that it was China you should worry about the most as the May manufacturing PMI slumped to 49.4, and because June was already looking ugly for CNY (as Bloomberg notes today). Moreover, if you listen to recent statements from the White House, and read tweets from a few key US market participants, you could make a strong argument there will soon be US sanctions placed on China over its alleged concentration camps in Xinjiang. (Which readers who have spoken to me personally may recall I have long been suggesting would be a logical--and powerfully disruptive--'moral' weapon for the US to use next.)

Notice that the site address is Zero Hedge. They have so many ad interruptions that I disconnect so that I can read the articles.

[Johnzky]

Let's think for a second.
Would such a world benefit mankind? Would it destabilize the current geo-economics? Is there even a remote possibility that we as humans let go of this ancient tradition of drawing lines on sand that have only served to create problems among masses and has done NOTHING good so far?

The question is how?if the world has no boarder this means we must be managed by one leader?because the conflict will always occur if we have different president or leader while we have no separation from each other’s.for me this is impossible to happen since we are separated by cultures,religions and bringing’s so in the end it will always a trouble letting each one enters other territories

Until the end of the world this will remain ,the boundaries and lines is part of every people lives just like how we have our own houses this same as having own country

[Naida_BR]

I think there is possibility for that, but there should be many changes in the world to do that. IDK the idea is to make 1 country or only no boarders. More possible is 1 country in future.

1 country is the most impossible thing to happen in the future.
This is going to cause anarchy and harm the stability of the world. Not to mention that terrorists would find a way to conquer all the places they want to.

[kooboat]

World without borders or ang boundaries is not advisable as that destroys the sovereignty of countries in the world. There are still many unresolved issues with many countries. Clearly we are seeing more division and chaos than unity and co-existence in the world.

[BADecker]

There will always be borders, just as a person's skin is a border to his body.

People need to socialize together to some extent. But they never socialize entirely. If they did, they would combine with those with whom they socialize.

Borders are good, just like differences of opinion are good. But crossing borders under invitation or contract (visa) is good just like sharing opinions is good.

[Daniel91]

There will always be borders, just as a person's skin is a border to his body.

People need to socialize together to some extent. But they never socialize entirely. If they did, they would combine with those with whom they socialize.

Borders are good, just like differences of opinion are good. But crossing borders under invitation or contract (visa) is good just like sharing opinions is good.

In the world today we need borders, I agree, but I believe that time will come when we will not need borders.
Believers waiting for ''a New Jerusalem'' ideal world governed by God.
Communist also belived in ideal world, communist world, Atheists believe in utopia etc.
They all believe in great social change after which people will live in an ideal world without division or conflict.
I'm not optimistic that such great social changes will happen soon but it will happen.
People always want to live better and more freely and it will never change.

[BADecker]

^^^ Except for one thing. All of history shows that tranquil societies don't last for long. Every long-lasting society like Roman, Greek, and Chinese, etc., are filled with violence right within their borders. So, how can there be peace outside their borders.

The only time there will be true, borderless peace is when God ordains it to happen that way. But there will still be borders. There will still be individuals. The borders will only operate around which froup or individual is better at being peaceful. Lack of peace will never be included.

[ck343]

Let's think for a second.
Would such a world benefit mankind? 

No. Borders are normal in human society.
My propriety has borders. If you traspass I'll sue you.
Enterprises have borders. They protect their business.
Communities have borders, within which they take care of their members.
They have the right of setting the rules in there.
They have the right of asking strangers who want to come in to respect those rules.
Etc.
Same on national level etc.
I'm not talking only about physical borders

[FriendlyIntellect]

A world without borders for me is the ideal world.
Where you can dream it and see it happen.
Where peace exists.

And in order to achieve this, we need more leaders in you and I.
More people to take responsibility for the world and make positive impact.

That's my take.

[BADecker]

^^^ It's called Heaven. You get there through death, if you have the right attitude about God. Guns simply make it less painful to get there. However, if you don't have the right attitude about God, don't die if you know what's good for you.

[Naida_BR]

A world without borders for me is the ideal world.
Where you can dream it and see it happen.
Where peace exists.

And in order to achieve this, we need more leaders in you and I.
More people to take responsibility for the world and make positive impact.

That's my take.

How can you say that a world with no boarders will be a place that only peace will exist?
We are different races, we believe in different religions and have different political thoughts. Imagine if all these would be place in one. Everyone would want to be superior against others. Actually not a place that would promote peace.

[Cootie]

Let's think for a second.
Would such a world benefit mankind? Would it destabilize the current geo-economics? Is there even a remote possibility that we as humans let go of this ancient tradition of drawing lines on sand that have only served to create problems among masses and has done NOTHING good so far?

This would be beneficial if we found true peace. A world where everybody understands and trusts each another. However, in today's world, it is so far from reality. Misunderstanding, prejudice, pride and many negative stuffs rampantly existing in our society. With that stuff going on, I think this borderless world will not work out or will collapse soon enough.

[alexcopper]

I think a better question would be a world without religions more so than borders. That draws people a part more than some imaginary line.

[Becksinsky]

Then it would be a single ruler?

[BADecker]

Naw. He'd have a lot of wives.     

[Spendulus]

Let's think for a second.
Would such a world benefit mankind? Would it destabilize the current geo-economics? Is there even a remote possibility that we as humans let go of this ancient tradition of drawing lines on sand that have only served to create problems among masses and has done NOTHING good so far?

Everybody knows we need borders to keep the zombies out.