Humanity's possible journey to unison

Renny wrote:

Is there any particular reason why you believe we would not get rid of national borders?

well...even if there was a world government, there would still need to be other smaller governments, maybe some national borders would be altered but I don't think we would get rid of them completely.
I mean most countries today have the country as a whole, and providences/states, and then cities and what not.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I suppose I see national borders as something useful instead of just something that divides us.

I think I get what you mean. It would result in something similar like the European Union, where national borders are getting less actual importance in terms of what nationalities mean. I think a better representation would actually be the United States. Each state could be seen as a seperate country, but the state borders have almost no impact whatsoever.

It seems to me that that would not cause any problems or benefit towards a global unison. If anything it would enable it to be more practical in terms of communication and interaction between levels of leadership or government. I suppose when I was thinking of getting rid of national borders it refered more to the different legislations worldwide. Where something's legal in one country and illegal in another.

Daniel L. wrote: Borders do nothing but claim who owns what land. A world with border is the same as a world without border. Structurally there is no difference to the planet. Its all imaginary owner ship.

Equality and unity are all utopian ideas. Like alcoholics, utopian ideas promise change in the future rather than in the present. Pretty useless ideas from where I'm standing. Its in diversity but with respect that you'll find harmony. There is no one right way to live. Equality and unity express just that.

Just some pessimism to the optimist.

Actually promised change in the future always has a direct influence in the present. In terms of what choices and paths we take. Equality and unity, as goals for the future, could help if those ideals are kept in mind when trades are made or internal politics take place. In terms of ideology timeframe is not that big of a factor as you could imagine. Both in it's positive sense like with equality and unity, as in it's negative sense. Consider for a moment that we still have the issue of nazi thought patterns circling around here and there.

ren wrote: The UK doesn't cause anything in the EU. It either does nothing or prevents things from happening. insults the east... and doesn't cause any discussions. Don't get me wrong, I personally benefit from the UK's presence in the EU. It's an excellent backdoor and is manipulated (thanks to poor implementation of democracy) by people with whom I share interests, unlike the population of my country, which is just plain stupid.
But while membership of the UK is in my personal interest, from an ideological point of view (you know, doing what's "right"), the UK should definitely be out and not be allowed back in.

edit: I actually hope people vote UKIP at the general election. While I resent the presence of these parasites in the EU parliament, there is nothing they can do there , however they can definitely get the UK out if they were to get majority in westminster. Or vote BNP (they look like a more honest bunch to be fair)

If those criteria would be grounds for expulsion from the European Union, many countries, including France and the Netherlands would be kicked out as well. Marine le Pen and Geert Wilders aren't exactly much different from the UKIP's mentality when it comes to Eastern Europe, the European Union and many other factors.

geert wilders isn't an MEP, and Le Pen's attendance at the EU parliament is greater than that of Nigel.... And most importantly, Le Pen, as the elected representative of her constituents, actually shows up and votes like a normal person doing the job she gets paid to do.
france, nl and other countries have similar internal issues that aren't linked to the eu which only seem to be tackled by the likes of Le Pen and Wilders. I would personally not benefit from voting Le Pen (being pro EU and married to an african) but would very likely vote for her at the presidential elections.

http://www.votewatch.eu/en/nigel-farage.html

"a" is for absent, "n" is for no vote cast. Funny how people select a representative who bangs on and on about lack of democracy in europe, and that representative never bothers representing anyone's interests within a democratic assembly. It is more than time someone returned his personal attacks in the form of warm organic acidic liquid jetted on his face.

the fact is, the Uk has no understanding of the EU, and its (apparent) hopes wouldn't even make it qualify as an eea (non-eu) country. no euro (not even ERM), no schengen (and no desire for freedom of movement, a key EU ideal), etc... Switzerland is more integrated to the EU than the UK... and they're not even part of the EEA.

lol, even within the UK scottish banknotes can't be used outside of scotland. It's just hilarious.

the UK's ego is just too big to be able play with the EU. There's no point in forcing things that aren't meant to be. De Gaulle, after living in the UK during ww2, vetoed Uk joining in as long as he had the power to do so. Winston churchill supported the creation of a "united states of europe", but without britain....

Those are interesting points you've brought up. I can't say that I've paid enough attention to those politics then to be aware of that. So in that regard you've just enlightened me a bit. Also votewatch is a nifty site.