If existing ceases to be illegal, would we evolve toward reaching a greater understanding of truth?
2007-12-01 18:15:17 · 22 answers · asked by Grunty O 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Phillip H. you are a facist. Read what you wrote for an answer and read up on facism.
There would be nothing wrong with allowing the federal government to wither and die and letting smaller territories decide what they want. There is no chaos and disorder, a citizen police force as opposed to federal agencies that have access to our lives, and a better understanding of what culture really is. But I agree with most people who say that we aren't ready yet...the question is really do you believe this will ever be a step in the direction to a better world. I don't think it has to happen the way the new world order wants.
2007-12-01 22:31:29 · update #1
Yes I like the way you think. Too bad there are too many people who are not ready for a better world.
2007-12-01 18:18:38 · answer #1 · answered by michael c 3 · 2⤊ 9⤋
No we should not. Truth and facts do not necessarily go hand in hand. The statement following your question is a perfect example of this, since to some it is the truth it has not been proved a fact. Borders are a concept that supports fact. By existing, one has an opportunity to examine both what is true and false and from that determination derive the facts. It is impossible to reach a conclusive decision on what is true or false when one alters evolution. At best one can make an estimated guess as to the out come but that guess would not support any other data because it would have been stimulated to achieve a predetermined desired effect. By removing borders one would certainly remove the stimulation of competition which is in and of itself a factor in determining evolution.
In short, there is no reason to believe that reducing a persons resistance in life makes them any better or truthful or even having the ability to determine what is better or truth.
Existing is not an illegal act even though at times an illegal act is synonymous with the the person existing. For example, if a person does a heinous act often times that person is most identified with the act rather than merely existing. This is the case with illegal aliens. It is not the fact that they exist that is illegal, it is the act they commited that is illegal, an act which, (whether it is right or wrong) brings with it a lable that people often use to identify the existing.
2007-12-01 18:52:37 · answer #2 · answered by joeandhisguitar 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO. If no borders existed, all the world's poor would just flock to the richer areas, and pretty soon we'd all be worse off. A one-world government would be naturally more unstable than a world like the present with many different political entities. Wars would condense into tribal/regional conflicts which are harder to track. There are more reasons why this would just be a terrible idea.
Your idea is not so enlightened as you might think. Sure, it sounds nice at first glance, but the world just doesn't revolve around a puppies-and-kittens philosophy that way.
2007-12-01 18:37:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The US is based on the concept on individual sovereignty, whith our rights coming from God, not granted to us or taken away by any governmental body. The US Constitution supposedly, with it's checks and balances, ensure these rights to the individual. This system, while there are some countries w/similar constitutions, is totally unique the way it was designed. Other countries, especially our immediate neighbors to the North and South, do not share this concept. If, as the One World Order people are working towards doing, ever succeed in creating a North American Union, we would essentially be completely eradicating our constitution, our rights to vote for our "neighbors" to represent us, and give away our God given rights to:
1- Peacefully assemble;
2- Own property w/out the fear of Government taking it away for any reason w/out due process and recompensing us for the loss. This is part of what is meant as the "pursuit of happiness" as found in the Constitution.
3-Own guns for self-protection (from the Government itself, as well as the criminals who would take advantage of us if all guns were taken from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Look at the way handguns are severely restricted in Washington, DC, New York, and other places, and compare the crime rates to those places where there is more tolerance for the right of personal handgun use. It is WAY higher where guns are restricted by the government (against the Constitution).
4- The right to "be secure in our papers and possessions". refer back to #2 above.
Read the Bill of Rights, the writings of the Founders who experienced tyranny, and were trying to set up a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people"---NOT the government. That is what we would have if we abolished the borders. People have the choice and opportunity to live side by side without prejudice, and without Government forcing them to do so. An example of Government interference is the way the people of Albania and Kosovo started a civil war against each other after decades of being under control from the Soviet Union. The Soviets were the ones controlling their way of life, and often moved populations of one culture into another one, and the results (in the end) were disastrous.
We want to be tolerant of everyone's differences in speech, culture, language, etc. We "should" want to do so of our own free will, not because we are legislated into doing so.
2007-12-01 20:08:46 · answer #4 · answered by Linda H 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Do you notice how all the people who come from or support piece of trash countries want to end the border of OTHER nation? What if me breaking into your house and stealing all your possessions ceases to be illegal? I say we all show up at this yahoos house and take all that he owns. Why not? Wouldn't we evolve too a greater understanding of truth this way!
2007-12-01 18:34:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Since WHEN has existing been illegal?
The concept of borders and nationality are essential to governing a Nation. Any nation that does not recognize that fact will cease to exist.
If we have no nations, then WHO WILL RULE?
I hate to think of the resulting anarchy and tyranny. (Lets face facts, the human race needs governing.)
Every tyrant will establish his own tribe and war will be the constant and MOST DOMINANT feature of life on planet earth!
I love peace, but peace is purchased by the blood of the brave.
THAT is a FACT!
I hope that changes some day, but it won't be soon. Look at the world around you.
2007-12-01 18:41:14 · answer #6 · answered by Philip H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Annex Mexico. They want to live in the U.S.A, we keep giving them billions in "loans." I say lets just call for repayment, add 10 or 15 states, and keep the mint going on those quarters.
2007-12-01 18:26:33 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, we should do away with these ideas.
Along with the ideas of food, shelter, medical care, education, agriculture, science, and literacy itself.
Because if we are all then living as beasts of the field, unclothed, unsheltered, and unfettered by the faintest shred of moral constraint, then we will know the truth.
And the truth is, without these things, we will all soon be dead.
2007-12-01 18:22:55 · answer #8 · answered by Jim P 4 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Do you lock the front door too you home. If so does "existing" make you nervous? But you win the wise and caring award
2007-12-01 18:30:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, not unless we have totally given up on the idea of working for a living, for our needs and the needs of our families. Why not go to Mexico, for example and see if they'll hook you up...
2007-12-01 18:45:10 · answer #10 · answered by IMHO 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Deport illeglas, and keep the dream alive.
2007-12-01 19:13:41 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋