This Talk Of The Economy On A War...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Is He On The Sauce Again Or Is He For Real ?
44 Answers
either way, hes extremely dangerous and mixed with adolf merkel an extremely toxic combo.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Why is it so mad? One could make a case that, in general, history has seen the number of borders be gradually reduced. And they do emphasise divisions where they don't exist, or make them appear far more acute than is the case.
Perhaps the EU isn't ready yet to be a perfectly border-free entity, but it seems something worth working towards.
Perhaps the EU isn't ready yet to be a perfectly border-free entity, but it seems something worth working towards.
Borders get in the way, for sure, and sometimes that's bad, but sometimes it's good!
Juncker is pro-Schengen so it's hardly surprising that he advocates no borders. Where he goes wrong is that there is not one Government for all of Europe (much as he would like there to be) and policies differ significantly at the national level, especially in the current climate, so there needs to be borders to control what happens as you pass from one jurisdiction to another.
Juncker is pro-Schengen so it's hardly surprising that he advocates no borders. Where he goes wrong is that there is not one Government for all of Europe (much as he would like there to be) and policies differ significantly at the national level, especially in the current climate, so there needs to be borders to control what happens as you pass from one jurisdiction to another.
" but it seems something worth working towards."
im guessing youre on what hes on !....why do you think borders exist in just about any situation... have you ever wondered why people created borders around their encampments thousands of years and before ago...have you ever wondered why most animals are territorial..have you e...meh
im guessing youre on what hes on !....why do you think borders exist in just about any situation... have you ever wondered why people created borders around their encampments thousands of years and before ago...have you ever wondered why most animals are territorial..have you e...meh
We don't have borders around cities. We don't have borders between counties (even between Lancashire and Yorkshire). We don't have a border between England and Scotland. We don't have one between England and Wales. We don't have a border between the two halves of Ireland. The 48 contiguous states of the US have no borders between them.
Obviously those borders do exist in a theoretical sense, but apart from passing by a sign you wouldn't really know that you'd moved from one place to the other.
So no, I don't think borders are a natural state. And besides, drawing lessons from the time when neighbouring tribes a few miles apart might be at war with one another seems to be a bad idea on principle. Even Schengen's lack of borders isn't in itself a problem. The issue is that the countries aren't homogeneous enough for the lack of borders to be a non-issue, and the coordination between Schengen states on matters such as policing is... well, it needs improving, for sure.
But the borders themselves? They are mostly historical accidents, and I look forward to the time when people will come to realise that.
Obviously those borders do exist in a theoretical sense, but apart from passing by a sign you wouldn't really know that you'd moved from one place to the other.
So no, I don't think borders are a natural state. And besides, drawing lessons from the time when neighbouring tribes a few miles apart might be at war with one another seems to be a bad idea on principle. Even Schengen's lack of borders isn't in itself a problem. The issue is that the countries aren't homogeneous enough for the lack of borders to be a non-issue, and the coordination between Schengen states on matters such as policing is... well, it needs improving, for sure.
But the borders themselves? They are mostly historical accidents, and I look forward to the time when people will come to realise that.
I'm not sure of your point, baz. Freedom of movement across states is enshrined in the US Constitution. Their International border is pretty strongly enforced where possible, to be sure. But I still maintain that this is a historical accident that is not going to last in the long-term future. I don't expect to live to see this be confirmed or shown to be false, but never mind.
Borders are for a reason, always have been always will.
Ive already told you in short why, theres other reasons that wouldnt have maybe been the case thousands of years ago but without borders anybody can do what they want to your land come and take your resources, whatever and theres not much you can do about it, except use force to try and get rid of them and get back whats been taken.
you must live in some sort of fantasy dreamworld if you cant see why borders are needed/exist
I assume you live somehwere that has a door that can be locked to stop others just coming in and taking or doing what they want !...maybe youre some sort of idealistic treehugger who lives out in the forest...id bet youd still be pizzed off if somebody came along and started taking your resources though..
Ive already told you in short why, theres other reasons that wouldnt have maybe been the case thousands of years ago but without borders anybody can do what they want to your land come and take your resources, whatever and theres not much you can do about it, except use force to try and get rid of them and get back whats been taken.
you must live in some sort of fantasy dreamworld if you cant see why borders are needed/exist
I assume you live somehwere that has a door that can be locked to stop others just coming in and taking or doing what they want !...maybe youre some sort of idealistic treehugger who lives out in the forest...id bet youd still be pizzed off if somebody came along and started taking your resources though..
It's hard to know how to respond to that, except to point out that "home" borders (ie locked doors) and national ones aren't in any sense comparable.
In the long run, national borders are bound to continue to expand until there aren't all that many left. I don't really know what else there is to say. There are, in general, fewer and fewer borders in the world. This is a trend I expect to continue, and hope that it does. What is wrong with that?
In the long run, national borders are bound to continue to expand until there aren't all that many left. I don't really know what else there is to say. There are, in general, fewer and fewer borders in the world. This is a trend I expect to continue, and hope that it does. What is wrong with that?
Borders are not only inevitable but one of the best things that could have happened. That small groups got swallowed into bigger ones is no bad thing as long as the bigger groups still feel like a single group with a single culture, with variation across the area being minimal.
No one can control the whole world, there is too much variation, insufficient agreement. It's comparable to a committee trying to design a horse.
The common area, or nation state, needs to be near optimum size so one feels commonality with other citizens. And it is needed so that one authority can control things the way the people there believe their country should be controlled; and not intruded upon by unapproved of ideas from other areas.
It is only by splitting the world into these manageable bits that sensible progress can be made anywhere.
No one can control the whole world, there is too much variation, insufficient agreement. It's comparable to a committee trying to design a horse.
The common area, or nation state, needs to be near optimum size so one feels commonality with other citizens. And it is needed so that one authority can control things the way the people there believe their country should be controlled; and not intruded upon by unapproved of ideas from other areas.
It is only by splitting the world into these manageable bits that sensible progress can be made anywhere.
I think we already have strains with Scots, Welsh, Irish, and English (and a smattering of other important territories) so anything bigger would be an error. We have already witnessed the British Empire got split up (as empires are prone to do). Tends to happen when something gets too big that there is not common aims. (Or military enforcement.) EU is probably on the cards too as there is plenty of disagreement on various things.
We don't have borders around cities. We don't have borders between counties (even between Lancashire and Yorkshire). We don't have a border between England and Scotland. We don't have one between England and Wales. We don't have a border between the two halves of Ireland. The 48 contiguous states of the US have no borders between them.
Have you got one round your house, Jim?
Have you got one round your house, Jim?
//Have you got one round your house, Jim? //
Of course not. He lets next door repair his car on his drive and leave the rubbish behind and the dog from over the road carp on his lawn. And when people passing by feel like a lie down or a meal, or just to watch a bit of telly in they go. Help yourself my wallet is over there and do you need a new pair of shoes?
Of course not. He lets next door repair his car on his drive and leave the rubbish behind and the dog from over the road carp on his lawn. And when people passing by feel like a lie down or a meal, or just to watch a bit of telly in they go. Help yourself my wallet is over there and do you need a new pair of shoes?
Aww, and I thought you were going to be nice to me from now on, Togo :P
jourdain -- I'm under no delusions about a Utopian dream. It's simply an observation that, in general, the number of divisions in our society has reduced, rather than increased. Why should that not continue? And why shouldn't we hope that it does, and work towards it?
jourdain -- I'm under no delusions about a Utopian dream. It's simply an observation that, in general, the number of divisions in our society has reduced, rather than increased. Why should that not continue? And why shouldn't we hope that it does, and work towards it?
Latest Posts
Mass Graves Found In Khan Younis
News1 min ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Editor's Blog8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.