Why one should never obey a pig, especially if one is a work-horse. u_u

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I'm not sure how much feedback this will get, but I'll go for it anyway:

During English class today, there sprung up a discussion about the leading factors of conflict on Earth. Some of the main ones included:

-teritory
-money
-religion
-misunderstanding

You know, things like that. Anyway, we started discussing teritory, and a certain question was brought up.

[Size=5][b]If all borders were to be eliminated, would the world continue to function as well or better than it does currently?[/b][/Size]

I highly doubt that said actions (now don't go into why it woudn't happen, because we know it won't [any time soon, at least o.o"]) would be at all successful.
If your aim was to get rid of conflict, and make all people equal, it goes without saying yoru goal would never be reached. Certain areas of the world would still be impoverished, others would be rich (in resources and educated populous, I mean). However, every one (ideally) would have the same amount of money. Every one would be entitled to the same rights and be subject to the same laws.
One big communist country. o.o""

It goes without saying that communism leads to the empowering of a select number of individuals, leaving every one else mal-content, no matter how pure its original intentions were.
So, [i]that[/i] wouldn't work.

But what if the world did not become communist? People would still want [b]their own wealth[/b]. There's nothing that can be done for that.
It might also drive people of specific groups (i.e. religious and ethnic) to re-enforce their respective stereotypes. After all, where else would we get our sense of individuality?
People would find new ways to seperate themselves, forming unofficial "countries".

It is a known and obvious fact that people of certain ethnic groups often move into the same area, and (for people around here, at least) that the bank's name is written in Chinese, with smaller English text to the left.
Without any kind of place of origin to hold onto, these sort of things would probably be driven to the extreme.

Anyway, as X-Men tells us, [i][b]"Sharing the world has never been humanities defining trait.[/i][/b]

(My deepest appologies if I misquoted that._ _U)

And these are only a scant few problems that would arise...[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Dan L]

I for one don't believe it would work.. or at least not for long. It doesn't matter whether you believe it's due to sin or just human nature, our general tendency as a people is not to habitually unite in harmony but to try and get our cut.

It may work for a short time, but even if it did (which I doubt) soon enough people would end up in a disagreement and you'd have two different sects, so that everyone is happy and gets exactly what they want. After a while a lot of disagreement would end up in a lot of splits and before you know it we'd have borders and territories, places off limits to certain people and accessible by others, prejudice all around... And that's just the simple way things would be if the world was no-where near as big as it is.

I happen to believe that in heaven things will be different and people will be united- but then I believe that sin, or the bad parts of human nature, simply won't be, because they have no place in heaven at all. But hey- that's a side note, and we're not here to discuss that, are we ;) (though that doesn't mean "don't add your own opinion", it just means "don't bash this one and thus turn it into a free-for-all fight about beliefs")

(As I said, I don't think it would work. But I'm slighly disappointed that you didn't add an option for those who ardently believe that it would definitely work, in the poll :p)

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][color=darkred]Disbanding countries would mean disbanding armies and governments. Which, even if a world governing system was put into place, would mean that there would likely be large areas unmonitored. So, groups would spring up, trying to retake countries. Economy would collapse...bleh.

Plus there is too much firmly entrenched enmity between certain countries. It just wouldn't work.

I'll lock in "@#$% no." Thanks, Eddie...

*wins a million dollars*[/size][/color]

[Guest Sambo]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1][color=darkred]

I'll lock in "@#$% no." Thanks, Eddie...

*wins a million dollars*[/size][/color][/QUOTE]


Mihihihi.

*punches Mr. Macguire in the face for being a tool*

"And that's for making me wait if he was right or not during the commercial!"

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

If borders were eliminated, it would be a matter of days before they are replaced. We all know that de facto borders are just as harmful and no more beneficial than de jure borders, especially as far as economics go.

Although there is one slight counterexample to that: the former Soviet Union. Back when it was the USSR, all the republics considered themselves part of a greater whole, and didn't really bicker. But now that they're all "independent," they have the urge to start civil wars and other conflicts, just because their neighbors are no longer "soviet" but something else. It's bullcrap, but it's what happens. In this case, [i]adding[/i] borders caused problems.

So I guess the best thing to say is "changing" borders drastically is never good. (It never has been, as far as I can tell).

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I have to say no because of the fact people just don't like to share all the time.Also, not one government would work for 6. something billion people at one time.


If you took away boarders you'd get people taking over their neightbor's property in no time. Then there would be more fighting not less. But since there would be no way to determine whether one person or the other is correct we couldn't stop and the violence would undoubtably escalate.

Maybe I got the question wrong. It could happen since I can't even remember how to balance my checkbook right now, but still I gave it my best shot.[/color]

[Panda]

Many valid points have already been bought up in this thread. People are constantly fighting over land and boundaries, what belongs to them, what doesn't belong to others and so on. Removing boarders will only make those who want more land, to take it and claim it as their own since "there are no boarders". Greed is a driving force in many peoples lives. He who has the most wins kind of mentality.

You can see in on the global scale with the civil wars in the former Soviet Union to the not so big scale as in the case of my brother. My brother's backyard neighbor knocked down his fence and that of 3 other neighbors and moved the fence in 4 feet into their yards. She was claiming that it was her property. This has cause all kinds of problems with the neighborhood. Lawsuits and stupid things like she put lawn killer on the next door neighbors lawn! She also plays Richard Marx full blast out her window from 7am to 7pm everyday. Over and over. She is doing this to "get back" at the neighbors she thinks have "stolen her land". Even though the survey crew, court papers and police have all told her it isn't her property.

Removing boarders will only result in people setting up new ones in places others will not like. It would cause more problems than solve them.