"Countries" - Why they do not exist, and why they shouldn't.

The human species is a dumb one. Tragically incredibly daft and stubborn for the limits it creates, which then has to be broken down and rebuilt.

What is a Country? A country is a border surrounding a landmass, showing "this place is" x, where x is the name of the country.

Let's say that an alien landed on Earth and wished to visit a country. Wherever he went, he wouldn't be welcomed in. Why?

A country has "borders", whether you're born within these borders determines whether you're welcomed to live there or not. This is outright stupidity.

Now, why is it stupid? Because in reality, there are no set countries, just landmasses where people have decided "this place belongs to us, and within these borders, our laws are to be obeyed". When it comes down to it, there are no borders or countries, they are man-made imaginary lines for which people of different ""country-origin may live in. Sweden for Swedes, Poland for the Polish, and America for ........ Americans in the world. It sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't.

Let's say that Japan sank, and the Japanese had no country. Where would they go? Well, to other countries. Would they be welcomed? In some places maybe, but countries have "limits to how much". If no country had a "border", and each "country" helped oneanother instead of fighting eachother for SHIT reasons, we'd first of all have a more peaceful world because there would be no "borders" to expand upon. And second, people who had no place to go in situations of war or disasters would have options instead of facing rejection which may lead to their DEATH upon arrival home.

If I go to Denmark, I am only allowed to stay there for 30 days. Why? Because I am born within the Swedish "borders". Now let's say that Sweden bombed the FUCK out of Denmark and took it over, as such expanding the borders to include "Denmark", I am now, all of a sudden, allowed to be there as long as I want.

Funny, isn't it? No. Not fun at all. People should be able to think this through. "Leaders" of the world should've realized this by now.

If I could decide, the entire world would be under one set of rules, that rule would be to respect each and everyone equally and to let all people have equal rights to everything, no matter what belief or sexuality or gender.

Borders creates limits, bad ones at that. I see not one single positive thing with borders at all with the exception that it clearly points out where each country are on a map. Other than that, totally useless, and i'd go ahead and call this as much as insane.

A personal spit in the face to each country's founding father/mother.

And now, a quote from the movie 300, with a change. "THIS IS TERRA!"

..."Borders" and "immigration laws".. Fucking idiots. -.-"

The human species is a dumb one. Tragically incredibly daft and stubborn for the limits it creates, which then has to be broken down and rebuilt.

What is a Country? A country is a border surrounding a landmass, showing "this place is" x, where x is the name of the country.

Let's say that an alien landed on Earth and wished to visit a country. Wherever he went, he wouldn't be welcomed in. Why?

A country has "borders", whether you're born within these borders determines whether you're welcomed to live there or not. This is outright stupidity.

Now, why is it stupid? Because in reality, there are no set countries, just landmasses where people have decided "this place belongs to us, and within these borders, our laws are to be obeyed". When it comes down to it, there are no borders or countries, they are man-made imaginary lines for which people of different ""country-origin may live in. Sweden for Swedes, Poland for the Polish, and America for ........ Americans in the world. It sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't.

Let's say that Japan sank, and the Japanese had no country. Where would they go? Well, to other countries. Would they be welcomed? In some places maybe, but countries have "limits to how much". If no country had a "border", and each "country" helped oneanother instead of fighting eachother for SHIT reasons, we'd first of all have a more peaceful world because there would be no "borders" to expand upon. And second, people who had no place to go in situations of war or disasters would have options instead of facing rejection which may lead to their DEATH upon arrival home.

If I go to Denmark, I am only allowed to stay there for 30 days. Why? Because I am born within the Swedish "borders". Now let's say that Sweden bombed the FUCK out of Denmark and took it over, as such expanding the borders to include "Denmark", I am now, all of a sudden, allowed to be there as long as I want.

Funny, isn't it? No. Not fun at all. People should be able to think this through. "Leaders" of the world should've realized this by now.

If I could decide, the entire world would be under one set of rules, that rule would be to respect each and everyone equally and to let all people have equal rights to everything, no matter what belief or sexuality or gender.

Borders creates limits, bad ones at that. I see not one single positive thing with borders at all with the exception that it clearly points out where each country are on a map. Other than that, totally useless, and i'd go ahead and call this as much as insane.

A personal spit in the face to each country's founding father/mother.

And now, a quote from the movie 300, with a change. "THIS IS TERRA!"

..."Borders" and "immigration laws".. Fucking idiots. -.-"

I'm a history major, and that shit is fucked up, and that's all I'm going to say about this I withdraw from this stupid debate

On the one hand yes, on the other hand no. I would respond in more detail, but I'm busy writing a paper about injustices generated by global economics.

I think about things for more than 5 minutes, uninhibited by drugs, and that's fucked up. One world government? Really? Because nothing bad ever happens when power and money consolidate...

If every one could live under the very vague rule of "respect each other" then we wouldnt need laws.

How are you gonna tell all the other countries to merge under one government? You going to force them to? Then that means not everyone can live the way they want.

You gonna fight every country until you beat them into accepting one government and one political philosophy? Gonna kill every dictator until no one else is going to oppress its citizens?

Pretty sure most people want what you're talking about. The problem is executing a plan to unify everyone.

Each region has an arbitrary border that distinguishes and separates them based on ideological views of tradition, custom and politics. It has always been this way. Sweden isn't for swedes, Poland isn't for polish. Moving to another country is not a hassle, nor is visiting one.. Haiti had a huge natural disaster and I didn't hear about other countries rejecting those wishing to leave the unstable area.

A single country ideal under a single banner is never going to happen. Each region/country/collective of countries have a deadset view of the world that one won't let the other 'take over'.

I don't know about you but I do not wish to be in the same union of law with North Korea.

@Dagbiker said:

If every one could live under the very vague rule of "respect each other" then we wouldnt need laws.

What about scenarios that require arbitration, such as when two people have an equal claim to a resource or when somebody has accidentally wronged another? Don't we need well-defined rules for dealing with those types of situations?

So you're saying that if I decided to visit Earth, I wouldn't be welcome because humans are dickheads?

@Commisar123 said:

I'm a history major, and that shit is fucked up

Nation states are generally a bad idea

@Yagami said:

If I could decide, the entire world would be under one set of rules, that rule would be to respect each and everyone equally

Nope.

@Dagbiker: Yup, and that is how it really should be. But humans are stupid, so we need laws.

@Dany: Which is how it should be. People shouldn't reject, they should focus on helping. - As for language, cultures and so on, that isn't necessarily separated within a border. Look at France and Canada for example. I think the way to go is to have a Universal languages like English in order for people to understand eachother no matter where you go.

@Commisar123: This has nearly nothing to do with history. More geography.

@UltorOscariot: I'd probably prefer that, yes. This is mainly because if that government fucks up, they also fuck it up for themselves as they are a part of what they are working for. However having NO government I think would be the best, and just let the people do everything on their own.

@Daneian: "We are the Borg, prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile." - If mankind wants to move forward, it first needs to co-op with itself.

I think if everyone got a free cupcake on every first monday of the month the world would be a much better place. Also each family should also receive a free unicorn.

@Yagami said:

@Commisar123: This has nearly nothing to do with history. More geography.

k

@Yagami said:

@Commisar123: This has nearly nothing to do with history. More geography.

@Yagami: You are a complete and total idiot.

This is the most ridiculous, idealistic bullshit I've read in a while. There's a reason why this has never happened, and probably won't ever happen in the foreseeable future.

I'm hoping you realise that the concept of borders isn't restricted to just humanity. Animals possess separate territories amongst groups/individuals as much as we do. Monkeys have been hitting other monkeys with sticks way before we ever arrived.

@Example1013: I admire how you clearly put forward your arguement and backed it up. Next time, try to include atleast some material? Thank you.

MODS, IT IS OKAY for people to be shitheads toward me, I encourage debate, even if it turns ugly. Freedom of speech comes first.

@Example1013 said:

@Yagami: You are a complete and total idiot.

Naive is be the word I would use.

You can't like, own the earth, man.

@Aas: I don't understand what you are hinting toward. I never claimed to own the Earth, nor do I want to. What I did was to show how I personally would act if I did, which is equal rights for all, no matter what ethnicity, religion, sexuality or gender.

@Yagami Your hearts in the right place, but the problem you have is that you see the problem is borders, when borders are little more than a proxy for cultural distinctions. What is fine to one group is totally unacceptable to others. Good luck explaining women's and gay rights in the middle east. Good luck explaining the evils of hand guns in the United States or why they are alright in the UK. Borders may seem silly, but they give people choices. You may have a beautiful dream, but never assume others will share it, or that you have sufficient arms to impose it.

@Rappelsiini said:

@Example1013 said:

@Yagami: You are a complete and total idiot.

Naive is be the word I would use.

That would suggest that his ideas are nice theoretically, but unrealistic. His ideas are beyond unrealistic, many of them are stupid.

@Yagami: I could go down a list and point out paragraph by paragraph everything you've said that's wrong, but instead I'll tell you to go look up the fall of the Habsburg Dynasty, the American Revolution, German Unification, Italian Unification, and the past century of really bad shit that's happened in Eastern Europe and tell me how all these pushes for independence, autonomy, and decentralization would have been helped by a one-world government.

You do not understand human nature. Your idea is dumb and naive.

What you're suggesting is totaliaritism and anarchism at the same time. An utter oxymoron.

You can't say that everybody has to conform and live under one ruling body and then say that the law of the land should be do whatever you want. That'd be like having a constitution based on Calvinball. Human nature simply isn't alturistic enough for that. Maybe in the future if we're ever able to evolve as a species, but this is just ridiculous and naive idealism with absolutely no understanding of global sociological, political and cultural concerns.

Sounds like it was concocted by the mind of a teenager :D who hasn't studied much history :(

That wasn't meant as an insult by the way, so please don't take it that way. I just meant that you should consult history. It tells you why your ideas would not, could not and won't ever be implemented.

It's complicated. Organizing a country is hard enough, nobody can seem to do it right. Organizing the world would be impossible. Just look at the US. It's the best model I can think of, regional governments that handle themselves with a mostly hands-off federal government. Even then, we act like the federal government is some bogeyman threatening our "way of life." A way of life the states themselves need the federal government to maintain.

Anarchy, letting people do what they want, sounds fair and equitable on the surface, but people and nature are not. Rules are an attempt to create fairness and harmony for the greatest number of people. An attempt. The people who currently bend and write the rules to favor themselves, rendering the system unfair, are the same people who would simply cave in our skulls and rape us in a state of anarchy.

What if I like that Swedes can't get into my country? They're all blonde and communist and eat disgusting food. Keep that shit out of here. Thank god for American Immigration Law.

Goddamn man, why you gotta go an ask a hard question.

Yeah, when you oversimplify it like that, then screw countries. 

@Example1013 said:

@Yagami: You are a complete and total idiot.

Common sense is the only argument and position we need to come to this conclusion.

@Still_I_Cry said:

Sounds like it was concocted by the mind of a teenager :D who hasn't studied much history :(

That wasn't meant as an insult by the way, so please don't take it that way. I just meant that you should consult history. It tells you why your ideas would not, could not and won't ever be implemented.

History is fulled with stories of "great" men trying to unite other "misguided" countries under their beliefs thinking it would be for the greater good. The problem is the "misguided" countries have their own beliefs. Do you think Hitler thought of himself as an evil dictator, or rather from his views he though he was doing his country a favor. sames goes for Stalin, the entire Roman Empire, or any other powers in wars.

Are you retarded?

Edit: Just realized that you're Swedish, so this bullshit doesn't really surprise me. A lot of people spouting this kind of nonsense here these days.

Nope countries exist, try again.

@CornishRocker said:

This is the most ridiculous, idealistic bullshit I've read in a while. There's a reason why this has never happened, and probably won't ever happen in the foreseeable future.

I'm hoping you realise that the concept of borders isn't restricted to just humanity. Animals possess separate territories amongst groups/individuals as much as we do. Monkeys have been hitting other monkeys with sticks way before we ever arrived.

That's pretty much what I was gonna say. We may believe that we are far more developed than animals, but in reality our base instincts are as primal as that of any other creature on earth. Our intelligence has allowed us to move beyond mere instinct, but no matter how many layers of idealistic chatter and intelligent discussion we bury it under, our instinct will never die.

Or to put it another way: humans are as much animal as the creatures we call animal.

@TeflonBilly: For all I care, people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyother person, as for stealing and so on, people should have the sanity to not steal automatically. Of course I am being way too naive when saying this, but this is how it should be, and you all agree with it because being against it is immoral.

@Video_Game_King: People are dickheads. If I was the head of Sweden, i'd welcome aliens however. I do not believe in any sort of violence, ever. If a fight is needed, use the intellect.

@CookieMonster said:

@Yagami said:

If I could decide, the entire world would be under one set of rules, that rule would be to respect each and everyone equally

Nope.

You're right. Respect shouldn't be automatic, it should be earned. However everyone should have equal rights.

@UltorOscariot said:

@Yagami Your hearts in the right place, but the problem you have is that you see the problem is borders, when borders are little more than a proxy for cultural distinctions. What is fine to one group is totally unacceptable to others. Good luck explaining women's and gay rights in the middle east. Good luck explaining the evils of hand guns in the United States or why they are alright in the UK. Borders may seem silly, but they give people choices. You may have a beautiful dream, but never assume others will share it, or that you have sufficient arms to impose it.

Thank you! ^.^ - Culture is a bad thing, it hold us away from befriending eachother. Some cultures are savage, just as you say. Middle east is a shitstain, and America.. yeah, it pretty much is a tragic place as well. I don't see how borders give choices. If borders and all immigration laws that comes with borders disappeared, and each culture had to modernize itself, or maybe just fade away, it not only would allow people to be wherever they wanted, but it would also allow them to be who they are, no matter where they are. - Haha, i'm sooo pushing it. - I think that perhaps in 300-500 years, this may actually be the situation.

But as you say, for now, it is only a dream. Not all people want peace, that is clear. For humanity to befriend itself, humanity would have to want peace.

@CornishRocker said:

This is the most ridiculous, idealistic bullshit I've read in a while. There's a reason why this has never happened, and probably won't ever happen in the foreseeable future.

I'm hoping you realise that the concept of borders isn't restricted to just humanity. Animals possess separate territories amongst groups/individuals as much as we do. Monkeys have been hitting other monkeys with sticks way before we ever arrived.

Exactly, animals mark their territory. You seem to forget that we also are animals. Apes. African apes. It is within (SOME of) our instinct to defend our home (country). Patriotism is something i'll talk about next time, mainly how it is counter-productive and destructive. - One would think that we would understand better than other animals and NOT separate territories, but join together to grow stronger, and smarter.

@Dany said:

Sweden isn't for swedes, Poland isn't for polish.

A single country ideal under a single banner is never going to happen. Each region/country/collective of countries have a deadset view of the world that one won't let the other 'take over'.

I don't know about you but I do not wish to be in the same union of law with North Korea.

We are all under the Earth banner, so it already has happened. And that is exactly what I said. Sweden for Swedes and Poland for the Polish is a daft idea. Earth for Life, and Death is more like it. - Your hatred for North Korea's laws is understandable, however only the laws, not the PEOPLE.

@oatz said:

You do not understand human nature. Your idea is dumb and naive.

I'd go for naive. Feel free to point out the dumb parts, I like to learn. Do you?

@Still_I_Cry said:

Sounds like it was concocted by the mind of a teenager :D who hasn't studied much history :(

(Is a teen. :p) History isn't interesting, the future is interesting. - Sorry for being so close-minded, but the past is the past. The info from the past has obviously not helped us to achieve world peace, the answer lies in the future. It is but a matter of grasping it.

It's a noble sentiment.

However, such idealism is usually met with derisive laughter for reasons I really don't understand. Even in this very thread, there are differences of opinion that are clearly not caused by things as 'borders' or 'nationality'. They seem to be caused by the sense of individuality that we all share. So when I say 'clearly', I mean clear to me as an individual.

It seems to me that, as long as there are people that need others to define the term 'respect' for them, there will be borders. Doesn't mean we will never get there.

@Yagami said:

If I could decide, the entire world would be under one set of rules, that rule would be to respect each and everyone equally and to let all people have equal rights to everything, no matter what belief or sexuality or gender.

Well, in order to achieve a blossoming, peaceful human society, all we have to do is start being nice to each other.

Getting there is going to be a little tougher than that though, with all the countless institutions that paint false identities on us, making us hate others for reasons that are all utterly pointless.

I think a good start would be to reject all the big ones, like religion and the state. And raising our children peacefully, without force and coercion.

If you want to end immoral behavior, don't institutionalize it.

@Yagami: If we don't learn from the past we won't have a future.

@Vao said:

@Still_I_Cry said:

Sounds like it was concocted by the mind of a teenager :D who hasn't studied much history :(

That wasn't meant as an insult by the way, so please don't take it that way. I just meant that you should consult history. It tells you why your ideas would not, could not and won't ever be implemented.

History is fulled with stories of "great" men trying to unite other "misguided" countries under their beliefs thinking it would be for the greater good. The problem is the "misguided" countries have their own beliefs. Do you think Hitler thought of himself as an evil dictator, or rather from his views he though he was doing his country a favor. sames goes for Stalin, the entire Roman Empire, or any other powers in wars.

Uh, ok. :/

@Commisar123 said:

I'm a history major, and that shit is fucked up

While we're at it, why can't everyone just share their money and sing joyous songs together in peace and harmony? Hate to break it you, but you are not the first person to realize that nations are artificial and man-made. And that's all I'll say because any further response would be dignifying your uneducated, absurd position.

@Yagami: " the past is the past. The info from the past has obviously not helped us to achieve world peace, the answer lies in the future. It is but a matter of grasping it."

Laughed incredibly hard.

@Still_I_Cry said:

@Yagami: If we don't learn from the past we won't have a future.

And yet... the past that we need to think back upon is in the future.

And the future currency can be Bison Dollars!

@Yagami said:

Culture is a bad thing

For better or worse, culture is a result of individualism. How boring would the world be without it. All art and literature comes from it and all culture is then affected by it again. As I posted earlier, you're suggesting a totalitarian law which would prohibit people to follow their own chose lifestyle, but at the same time telling them that they are free to do whatever they want. Even with the caveat "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else", there will always be people objecting to the pettiest of things. You will either grind everybody under one boot and stagnating the species or have it run amok with no norms holding it back and letting it descend into chaos. You're asking for both, either complete conformity from everybody or what I envision to be an unmanageable mess due to people's need to exploit and use eachother, no matter what.

Humanity is way too primitive of a species at the moment to co-exist peacefully that borders are a necessity if nothing else. There has to be an "us and them" uniting factor in countries, because human's basest nature is at it's core still about preserving and spreading your own genetic material.

Hell, I'm almost for more borders than anything. Look at the US and how messy the political landscape of such a huge area with so many different views of how the country should be run is. Unless a civil war broke out, I'd postulate that it'd be a lot more manageable to have a government for a handfull of states each, rather than all 50 (Especially if they're gonna play world police at the same time).

As I said in my first post, we are at least an evolutionary step away from having a United Federation of the Terra

@StartRunning said:

It's a noble sentiment.

However, such idealism is usually met with derisive laughter for reasons I really don't understand. Even in this very thread, there are differences of opinion that are clearly not caused by things as 'borders' or 'nationality'. They seem to be caused by the sense of individuality that we all share. So when I say 'clearly', I mean clear to me as an individual.

It seems to me that, as long as there are people that need others to define the term 'respect' for them, there will be borders. Doesn't mean we will never get there.

Thank you! ^.^ - I guess it is because people realize how far away we are from actually being nice to ourselves. I actually disagree with respect being automatic however, respect should be earned based upon actions performed by the person. However equal rights for all is something atleast I see as a given. - Highly appreciate the kind words. :D

@BoG said:

Yeah, when you oversimplify it like that, then screw countries.

Hehe... Aaaand.. thanks for not locking, I don't mind people calling me stuff, freedom of speech comes first. If people feel the need to curse me out, i'll let them. It doesn't bother me. ^.^

@TeflonBilly said:

@Yagami said:

Culture is a bad thing

For better or worse, culture is a result of individualism. How boring would the world be without it. All art and literature comes from it and all culture is then affected by it again. As I posted earlier, you're suggesting a totalitarian law which would prohibit people to follow their own chose lifestyle, but at the same time telling them that they are free to do whatever they want. Even with the caveat "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else", there will always be people objecting to the pettiest of things. You will either grind everybody under one boot and stagnating the species or have it run amok with no norms holding it back and letting it descend into chaos. You're asking for both, either complete conformity from everybody or what I envision to be an unmanageable mess due to people's need to exploit and use eachother, no matter what.

Humanity is way too primitive of a species at the moment to co-exist peacefully that borders are a necessity if nothing else. There has to be an "us and them" uniting factor in countries, because human's basest nature is at it's core still about preserving and spreading your own genetic material.

Hell, I'm almost for more borders than anything. Look at the US and how messy the political landscape of such a huge area with so many different views of how the country should be run is. Unless a civil war broke out, I'd postulate that it'd be a lot more manageable to have a government for a handfull of states each, rather than all 50 (Especially if they're gonna play world police at the same time).

As I said in my first post, we are at least an evolutionary step away from having a United Federation of the Terra

Well, multi-culturalism is a failure. It simply doesn't work. It may take centuries, maybe even milleniae. But Science and technology will beat out and bury the cultures that cannot hold up. I am mostly thinking about the religious nonsense now however. As for art and so on, that, I have absolutely nothing against.

I totally agree with you about the primitivity of the human primates. We need to understand that hate, violence, fraud and backwards thinking will lead us nowhere. We must co-operate if we're going to go anywhere but a soon-to-be extinction.

Jumping back again. - I do not want to limit people's lifestyles at all, just as little as I want to limit my own. I'm trying to see where I said that but I can't seem to find it. People "simply" need to think outside the box more. Back on respect again, I'd say that sexuality must be accepted by each and everyone. Whereas a person's beliefs does not. "As long as it doesn't hurt anybody else". - Exactly. However with this I merely mean physical violence, and also mental in some cases like sexuality. Religiosity should be fully open to critizism, as well as sexuality but not as far as to personally attack a person's sexuality as it is something innate in the person, whereas religious superstition can be fully attacked as it is a sort of wilfull mental instability. - I'll get massacrated for saying that but that's what I think personally, and I am not alone to think so.

I feel bad every time I see one of these kinds of threads. It just feels like the OPs took a philosophy class or read 1984 and got really depressed and now they're all world weary.

I'm a history major, and that shit is fucked up, and that's all I'm going to say about this I withdraw from this stupid debate

Actually the main problem with a unified Earth is the stagnation that follows, in the past when one massive empire has been achieved IE the Roman Empire the lack of competition led to disintegration and creation of competition. Humanity at its core is a competitive and greedy ideal, one unified government wouldn't cut it, a few talented individuals with a lust for power would ensure it wouldn't.