|
 deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
 Borders 
#3845857 - 02/28/05 09:03 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I think borders are morally unjustifiable. It should be a right of everyone to go anywhere they want on this earth. I do recognise, however, that this could never be implemented in today's society.
I also think that borders grossly distort the free-market. If there were no borders, there would be far greater equality in income throughout the world, and little to no government intervention and aid would be needed. I would be perfectly happy with an almost totally libertarian system if there were no borders.
This is why I totally shun patriotism, it is another example of inter-group discrimination, something that arises wherever we create groups (different football teams, political ideologies, races, countries). We have no greater legitimate claim to the country in which we live than anyone else.
Who disagrees?
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!
Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 11 months
|
|
"the flag should be a picture of your parents F&%$ing" - Bill Hicks
|
 RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
People have a tendency to engage in conflict. People have a tendency to band together. People have a tendency to make nations. When nations are made, borders are made.
To wish for anything else is pure fantasy because it could never happen in this world. Our race wouldn't allow it or we wouldn't be able to enact it.
Edited by RandalFlagg (02/28/05 11:17 AM)
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
I didn't say I see it as feasible (currently), I said that I see it as desirable to end borders. Edit: and morally the only acceptable way. Do you think borders are morally acceptable?
People will fight among themselves if you put them in groups. The less groups there are the more people identify themselves as members of a global humanity.
Edited by deafpanda (02/28/05 11:10 AM)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
I didn't say I see it as feasible (currently),
What is the point of fancying ideas that could never be implemented in real life?
I said that I see it as desirable to end borders. Edit: and morally the only acceptable way. Do you think borders are morally acceptable?
Yes, I do. Not only do I think it is inevitable that people will band together and engage in conflict, I believe it is an individual's right to set up or ally themselves with a group. And when this happens they have every right to determine what goes on in the land that they inhabit, distinguish themselves from other peoples, engage in their own culture, and establish territory.
People will fight among themselves if you put them in groups. The less groups there are the more people identify themselves as members of a global humanity.
And how would you impose this homogenous feeling of community upon all of humanity? I have a feeling it would end up being just like communism. It would be a social ideal that would have to be imposed upon Man by force and which would end up being worse than what came before it.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
What is the point of fancying ideas that could never be implemented in real life?
For discussion, of course.
I also think that it may be possible in many, many millennia. I believe that civilisation as we know it will not go on forever, I think there will probably be many major catastrophes and new beginnings.
Quote:
And when this happens they have every right to determine what goes on in the land that they inhabit, distinguish themselves from other peoples, engage in their own culture, and establish territory
So you can forcibly prevent someone from stepping on the part of God's Green Earth that you happen to be residing on? I don't think land should be owned.
THe engage in their own culture bit sounds strange in this context - are you saying that the geographical proximity of other cultures somehow impedes your ability to practise your own?
Quote:
And how would you impose this homogenous feeling of community upon all of humanity? I have a feeling it would end up being just like communism. It would be a social ideal that would have to be imposed upon Man by force and which would end up being worse than what came before it.
Again, I am not saying that this is in any way likely to happen. If it was likely to happen, the global political climate and people's attitudes and values would be radically different. Nothing works when imposed by force, and I am not advocating that.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
A community can be diverse, with different subcultures, without it being in conflict. Feelings of segregation and injustice are imposed upon us by our government, in order to divert our attention away from the real problem, which is, the fact that we let these people rule our lives. They don't want us to believe that everyone in the world could live in harmony, without the need for nuclear arms and bombing less fortunate countries in order to protect us from "terrorists". IMO, anyway.
--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).
Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
|
I wish there was peace on earth.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
They don't want us to believe that everyone in the world could live in harmony
If this world is ever in permanent and absolute harmony, I will set myself ablaze and jump off of a tall building.
Needless to say....I think I will die of natural causes.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
So you can forcibly prevent someone from stepping on the part of God's Green Earth that you happen to be residing on?
Within reason.....yes.
I don't think land should be owned.
Well, it is.
THe engage in their own culture bit sounds strange in this context - are you saying that the geographical proximity of other cultures somehow impedes your ability to practise your own?
No. What I was trying to say was that different cultures make us different people. Different groups have different beliefs, desires, and concerns. It is the right and the inclination of humans to have cultural differences. These differences will inevitably result in conflict.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
They don't want us to believe that everyone in the world could live in harmony
If this world is ever in permanent and absolute harmony, I will set myself ablaze and jump off of a tall building.
Needless to say....I think I will die of natural causes.
I think it's a nice thought...
--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).
Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
Whether it is inevitable that humans will create conflict is irrelevant to this discussion. While I think it is highly likely that humans will continue to be war-like for many millenia, I am not debating whether they will always be so and have no interest in doing so (it's impossible to know).
Quote:
Well, it is.
I know, we are discussing the moral justification for this.
Quote:
Within reason.....yes.
So where does this right to exclusive occupancy of land come from? The government grants this right, but on what grounds? It is obviously not because it is in the interests of everyone for there to be borders, it is because it is in the interest of those in high-resource areas to stop others enjoying the benefits of these resources. There is no good moral argument.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
So where does this right to exclusive occupancy of land come from?
we are discussing the moral justification for this.
There is no good moral argument.
There is no moral justification for it. It is our nature.
Edited by RandalFlagg (02/28/05 12:38 PM)
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
That's the one.
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
Typical right winger said:
Gee, you stumped me there, guess I'll just have to fall back on the good old reliable human nature argument
--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).
Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Typical right winger said:
Gee, you stumped me there, guess I'll just have to fall back on the good old reliable human nature argument
Hahahaha! Hold on there smartass. He didn't stump me.
I don't believe in moral justification because I don't believe in the validity of any system of thought. I don't think we can comprehend God and His Will and I don't believe in the validity of anything that Man has come up with. There is no moral justification for anything in my opinion. We do what we will and God will sort it all out.
We do have systems of thought which guide us, but our nature oftentimes overrules these.
|
deafpanda
Stranger
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 984
Loc: Inguland
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
|
I believe that not only is there no moral justification for borders, but that they are in fact morally wrong. This is because they prevent others from doing something that harms no-one (going where they want).
|
rogue_pixie
faerydae
Registered: 07/28/04
Posts: 3,977
Loc: UK
|
|
God sure is taking its time!
If we didn't have systems of thought to guide us (or force us) then maybe our nature wouldn't get in the way & overrule us?
--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving. Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).
Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
I believe that not only is there no moral justification for borders, but that they are in fact morally wrong. This is because they prevent others from doing something that harms no-one (going where they want).
What if a group of people seeks to come in and steal resources from you?
What if a person's or group's presence in your geographical area negatively affects things? What if a shitload of nomads ran through your area, ate all of the food, devastated the environment, and left tons of trash? How would you survive in a wasteland?
When you don't define borders, people will seek to lay claim to things and take whatever resources they want to take. Without clearly defined territory, this would happen even more than it already does. By banding together, people are better able to defend themselves and their resources.
Edited by RandalFlagg (02/28/05 01:03 PM)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
God sure is taking its time!
He/She/It has a way of doing that.
If we didn't have systems of thought to guide us (or force us) then maybe our nature wouldn't get in the way & overrule us?
If we didn't have systems of thought, our nature would be all we had.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 all )
Phred
3eyes
catalyst777
Autonomous
SoopaX
Toricious