(April 24, 2017 at 11:00 am)Isis Wrote: In a sense, yes, it has been working well for the EU, that's great and all, but that's only a fairly small amount of countries. We're talking worldwide open borders here and that is totally unrealistic. People aren't going to sit back and watch their country's being stripped of their sovereignty completely.
Before you say it, that isn't tribalistic and anyone who thinks so is a fool. As I said, you can be welcoming to immigrants but also support borders. Borders help keep out the troublemakers while still letting the law-abiding, hard-working folk in.
Keep out the troublemakers?
Tell me, what do you do with the troublemakers that are born in your country?
In a unified global "state", they'd get the same treatment they get nowadays... seems obvious.
(April 24, 2017 at 11:00 am)Isis Wrote: Let's just say, hypothetically, we were close to establishing a world government, what about the countries who don't want to join? Are you going to invade and annex them? Sanction them until they bow down and become part of your project? You can bet your ass many countries won't.
I know I'm not supposed to provide a viable solution to that scenario, but I'm sure far more qualified people would, at the time, present their options.
As for my opinion, the large "country" should focus on doing its best so that it presents itself as a very welcome partner.
Why would invasion or sanctioning be required? Such terminology only goes to show the tribal nature of how people think - war or withdrawal of resources as a way to force others to abide by "our" rules.
