There's always this or that tribe or gang arguing over where exactly the border between Dirtfarmia and Industrial-Factorystan lies, the Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Bureaucratic Corruption keeps trying to tie up in red tape any attempts by "its" citizens to emigrate to areas not suffering mass starvation, and vigilantes in Shariaville like to vandalize resident Internet backbone servers to protect everyone's virtue from the decadent infidels the next sand dune over.
When are we going to get our one world government so we can move on past this juvenile bullshit?
Is this the OP from the "socialist world" thread?
>>24
Borders are between countries with different laws.
Hello, mysterious long poster returning.
In summary:
The concept of borders are so entreched in our minsd that we can hardly even discuss the world without referring to them.
The alternative is to reject the very notion of borders and begin envisioning what the world might be like without them.
Oh but it's much better now than 60 years ago.
We've entered a kind of post-Westphalian stage where the old notion of an autonomous sovereign state is rather obsolete. Instead we have these kinds of "market-states" kinds of amorphous, semi-corporate bodies collaborating and consolidating resources, like the EU, North America, and despite some political friction, East Asian states for the most part are economically inseparable.
This is ironically a situation similar (although under very different circumstances) to the ones envisioned by various early 20th century political idealists when talking about unified economic blocs, like the "Greater-East-Asia-Co-Prosperity Sphere", or the unified world socialism of Marx-Leninists. Big difference is that they're not racially/nationally-defined and they're not mercantile in any way, but inter-dependent and globalised.
Still, I think you have to give Pax-Americana a lot of credit for this. If political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, as Mao would say, can you keep your happy unified world going smoothly without that powerful military presence as leader of the co-prosperity sphere?
lol.
>>28
I tried rejecting them but then I noticed that countries had trouble enforcing their multitudes of different laws and had to re-enstate checkpoints, customs etc... so that they could maintain some level of justice. Looks like your marxist fantasy world is just that after all but you are not intelligent enough to notice.
The idea of everyone putting aside race and culture and coming together is absurd. Do you want to see African savages hacking off clitorises in Iceland or Muslim terrorists blowing up Shinto shrines in Japan? Multi-culturalism is a virus, and logic is the cure.
Viewing the world in black and white is a common feature of childhood, and sadly, many of us never outgrow it.
Easing arbitrary national boundaries will not lead to dark savage beasts despoiling our pure Aryan daughters, or Middle Eastern extremists exporting their explosive brand of gospel across the world. The new world order is not going to enforce homosexuality or stamp a '666' on your forehead. Get over your petty fear of the dark.
>>32
If you think every foreigner is the epitome of moral righteousness you are naive.
Do you realize how chaotic it would be? You would have a jillion foreigners on America's doorstep the day after the State takes over. I don't think you losers realize the huge difference in wealth between nations.
I invite >>32 to come to the western edge of Detroit, Michigan, right around where Six Mile Road meets Telegraph Avenue, and start walking east on Six Mile.
Anyone want to take any bets on how likely it is that he'll reach Livernois Avenue, or get any further than that, without the Crips or the Vice Lords or the Latin Counts or MS13 popping a few caps in his whitebread ass?
This is what "diversity" has brought us, and every day it brings us more of the same.
I never said that foreigners were the epitome of whatever. I just said they're not hellbent on stealing our vital fluids.
The modern day model of immigration is flawed because it's not politically correct to expect migrants to learn the host country's language and adopt its culture. This gets to be a problem when "honor killings" and female circumcision and a host of other horrors arrive in first world countries. First worlders feel they have higher callings in life than raising children. Immigrants will have many more children than natives, hence fears of Islamization and the majority becoming the minority.
Once upon a time, it was enough that the host country gave the migrants a better life, but nowadays migrants expect to be of equal economic status. Obviously, this is downright unrealistic. The natives have familial ties, a better grasp of the language, and many other advantages. The sheer sense of entitlement that immigrants feel is astounding.
>>38
It would require negligible levels of crime on either side of the border for borders to become obsolete. If you don't like borders you would want to declare that foreigners hardly ever commit crime and there is no point in maintaining borders. I used hyperbole to outline the absurdity of the idea that foreigners are practically crime free by declaring you believe them to be the "epitome of moral righteousness".
>it's not politically correct to expect migrants to learn the host country's language and adopt its culture.
>"honor killings" and female circumcision and a host of other horrors arrive in first world countries
>First worlders feel they have higher callings in life than raising children
>Immigrants will have many more children than natives,
>entitlement that immigrants
I don't know where to begin, your world view is so horrifically broken. To start, you seem to have an out-of-proportion view of political correctness. It's nothing to do with being a fucking pushover, it's simply not calling your black coworkers "boy." Political correctness doesn't demand we respect a man's decision to wear a cocktail dress at work, or accomodate someone who refuses to learn the local language. Seriously, who sold it to you as some sort of culture-destroying boogeyman?
Honor-killings and female circumcision are symptoms of tribalism. Urban camel-jockeys who have to worry about the health insurance and rent engage in these behaviors at a much lower rate than rural ones. It's so rare among immigrants that American xenophobes are still gabbing about the one that happened a decade ago.
Fertility is lower among North Americans and West Europeans because medical care is good and sex education is high. That "higher calling" stuff is bullshit. I'm a middle-class asshole trying to get into the IT industry and get a comfy job, but my real aspiration is a white-picket fence and a kid or two. It's no coincidence that the Americans who keep dropping crotch-fruit are the ones with little or no schooling. Any immigrants who come here, their children will spend a year or so in ESOL, get mainstreamed for the rest of their education, and grow up to join the workforce and buy condoms.
Basically, not all immigrants will have more kids, and those who do, will cut that shit out by the first generation.
And yes, some immigrants have entitlement complexes, but that generally gets smacked out of them.
Let me tell you a story: when Irish immigrants first came to the United States, they were decried as "white niggers;" viewed as sub-human, even African-Americans bitched about their savagery. People whined about their backwards customs, reluctance to adopt American customs, and higher birthrate. A lot of honkies were convinced they were a threat to genteel American society.
Now, no one gives a shit about Irish Americans. Irish men marry white women all the time without a fuss being kicked up. One day, your grandchildren will fail to have nightmares about towel-headed savages and castration. So shut up.
PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Irish_Need_Apply
(lest you somehow get it into your pointy head I'm full of shit)
>>46
Some racial classifications are pseudoscientific. Others are scientific.
How is hating on poor immigrants from Ireland different than hating on poor immigrants from anywhere else? Is it because your mother and father raised you to believe the Irish were white?
Ugh, stop digressing off topic with this Irish, crap. Take it elsewhere. This thread is about open borders and the One State, okay.
>>48
I thought we were discussing the scientific basis for race?
>>49
A world government would need to be oppressive since not everyone agrees with each other.
>>51
Let's say you have a strong world government like say the US already set up; we are past the initial war period where you can expect guerilla warfare and rebellions. All you would need is a strong police force then, right? If you have a democracy and fairly independent provinces (no armies, obviously, and you have global laws to follow) then the rate of revolts should not be too high.
The laws can be the same as what's in the US right now, except the provinces can't go independent (which no state in the US can do anyway considering history) Can't have armies forming out in the country-side. The world is big enough though that there are going to be isolated settlements but it's not like the government would have to even contact them. So I don't see a world government as necessarily being oppressive.
>>52
"we are past the initial war period where you can expect guerilla warfare and rebellions."
That sounds oppressive.
>>53
Fine, how about cultural take-over then? What I meant was that once you have a world government, through whatever means, it doesn't have to any different from the liberal democracies that we have today.
The Irish weren't blowing people up. /end discussion.
At least muslims blow themselves up.