2006-06-19 07:47:50 · 3 answers · asked by trust 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The borders are only political, to decide juristiction over areas. It's part of the idea of humans controlling humans, and trying to keep that control. Can you imagine trying to keep control in Eurasia, with only one ruler? The only way no borders would work is if we all became anarchists, which isn't a bad thing...
2006-06-19 07:57:15 · answer #1 · answered by Dr. Psychosis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you're talking about national boundaries, you have the problem, not simply of mutual trust, but of fair allocation of resources. If no boundaries exist, and are not enforced, what would prevent folks from half the world away from coming to a rich area, taking what they want, and removing it back to their own homes? The English philosopher John Locke proposed that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property--rights that the governments may not take away. The problem is that without those very governing authorities, strong individuals can take those things away from the weak. Until you can solve that problem, you're stuck with boundaries.
2006-06-19 08:47:51 · answer #2 · answered by Dale T 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always say... if there were no lines, no one would get mad if you crossed one.
didn't understand your question... specifically.
2006-06-19 07:51:44 · answer #3 · answered by hippychickz38 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋