Pro-Borderless

Right of conquer.

You are correct of course, but you wont find anyone willing to debate you here, all you will find are a bunch of Nazi haters acting on self interest.

Borders are the biggest and most oppressive part of government.

We should ban cell membranes.

I'm sorry that you are retarded.

No, you would abide by a universal planetary law

Those opinions only formed from unnecessary isolation, we are all brothers pending unison

Based An(on)cap

Cell membranes are a natural phenomenon, borders alas are not.

Why would different people from different cultures live in harmony without borders when they clearly can't now?

Who gets to choose the planetary law?

I am kind of interested. Most people who say this shit are just memeing so I never get any answers.

but only for white coutries
and no immigration from outside, that means no asian insectoids either

Not having borders would mean people would be more motivated to reconcile (the borders) in their differences

Planetary law has mostly already been written, current laws from supranational bodies like the EU/UN would have to be adapted slightly but it wouldn't take too long

No user.. the gift of a borderless world is being shared with EVERYONE, not just a privileged few...

>apart from personal private property who are we to decide who can and cannot set foot in the lands, seas and skies of the planet?
and who are you to decide that?

A borderless world is the natural order of things, look how many resources are needed to run borders (checkpoints, personnel, motion sensors, walls)

We need more borders, I want Europe to be full of microstates in the size of Liechtenstein. There's no argument against it.

Are you saying you want no borders period, or no borders within that zone? Because the people living to the south of Europe would be very happy with the former proposal.

ONLY white ppl you bongoid

>Planetary law has mostly already been written, current laws from supranational bodies like the EU/UN would have to be adapted slightly but it wouldn't take too long
Do you get a kick out of oppressing currently weaker groups than you

If by 'microstates' you mean around the size of people's houses, then perhaps yes I would agree with you

They would have to be low density (no more than 2-3 next to each other) to not impede public access around the 'microstates'

Protected borders stop people from killing eachother. Why else would they be there?

no, I don't want that, I revel in the chaos, and us barbarians always win

No borders, as Europe is currently very well off, it should set an example. The rest of the world would soon follow.
The UN/EU currently write some of the most environmentally friendly laws. If the rest of the world could follow them we could really stamp out excessive carbon emissions

>look how many resources are needed to run borders (checkpoints, personnel, motion sensors, walls)
and who are you to decide whether those are needed or not?

Attached: 1554918189026.png (520x512, 51K)

Borders are a creation of civilization. Without them civilization cannot exist.

>Oh look we have a border our country must be 100% murder-free

Nice try, come back with a real argument.

Does the Earth's instruction manual say "only white ppl", no? Pull your weight and share nicely. ALL races are human and deserve a slice of the pie.

Ok.. you don't seem mentally sound so I will refrain from further addressing your 'points'

it is perfectly mentally sound, you have people like me who want violence, and you want no border between me and you

Early civilisations may have had a different idea of what a border was - e.g. the line where the river's drainage basin can no longer grow the crops we need to survive but the fact of the matter is, physical borders are unnatural

A concerned citizen of planet earth

No borders != no laws

>A concerned citizen of planet earth
well then why are you using those idiotic arguments that undermine everything you say? LOGIC is an inevitable part of the existence, I hope you'll finally realize that.

I've already told you physical borders are UNNATURAL. No borders were there before borders

The only good "nation" is "imagination"

#FuckBorders

Borders, are there to control population numbers. Without knowing the size of the population within those borders. You are unable to plan, how much food is needed for the winter, how much shelter. Water, clothing. Europe has borders, without them it couldn't exist.

How can physical borders be unnatural if they were made by animals called humans? unless you tell me humans aren't a part of nature because we can emit .000000000000000001% of c02 emissions.

Attached: 9387457345.jpg (858x536, 100K)

yes but I don't want laws and I'll have as much say in it as you, so I'm voting on some violence allowed, also if one population has high percentage of people like me who don't want to follow the law... you see where this is going, stop being retarded

oxfam.ca/there-enough-food-feed-world
There is enough food to feed the world.

A worldwide census is more than possible, once again no borders != no laws/government

Aleut populations managed to thrive in harsh frozen climates without borders for thousands of years

Even if none of this was possible, the lack of borders would mean people could migrate south for winter if it got too cold.

>Do you two get a kick out of oppressing currently weaker groups than you
thats pretty much how property was settled for all of time while the world looked like your OP map.
if we are to go full borderless, id support it if we also went entirely lawless, unironically the same same laws protecting those borders you hate so much are also protecting the underlings,

OPEN BORDERS FOR ISRAEL

physical borders are very natural, I tought you had mountains in england too, that's exactly why people over those mountains north of you look and speak different, that's why people across that channel from you look and speak different, natural borders are how we got different peoples in the first place

This user gets it

They are, look how much infrastructure is needed to maintain them - this point was addressed above

Your point is moot, people don't naturally want anarchic lawless societies. If that was the case, a 'national' population would've done it by now. Europe will set the example as they are most well off and the rest of the world will follow when it is demonstrably functional

fpbp

>What are rivers, mountains, canyons, and so on.
Sure there aren't any natural physical borders anywhere moron.

give me food for free and I won't work, and no one will work and we'll run out of food

Physical borders in this sense meant man-made structures like border control, you obviously knew that. Quit trying to be a smartass

No it didn't the Roman empire had a strong set of laws which protected groups from this. They also attempted to expand their borders worldwide but got halted

Natural physical borders are real yes, stopping someone from crossing them because they are not a 'national' is what I'm referring to

The technology exists to help those unable to grow, noone's saying there will be mass unemployment

There won't be beyond 2050. Around then word population will have reached its sustainable level.
That's not even touching on the heard nature of the human animal and the difficulties inherent in that. People would migrate. And if the resources are not available, people will die.

>I meant these kind of borders user!
Now we're moving the goal posts in your argument. Logical fallacies abound!

by all means then, open all borders to england and watch as the rest of europe goes full raid gear nazi, or like look at what happened when we opened our southern border during socialism, or what happened when we had no internal ethnic borders in yugoslavia, people gonna be retards, and retards gonna kill eachother.

I'm simply saying that if food is free, I ain't working, not because I can't find a job but because I don't want to, work is hard and I need to be motivated

youtu.be/IFSB2Up9CKo

The cross-transfer of ideas from open borders would allow solutions to be made. Humans will adapt.

To some, crossing a mountain is a hike, to others (like your basement-dwelling self) it's an impossibility. You know I was talking about HUMAN CONSTRUCTED borders, make sense or I will stop replying

>It didn't work by my standards here so let's never try it again.

We know better now and can learn from history's mistakes

Entirely your choice my friend, not having borders makes 0 impact on that particular decision

honestly I don't know why I even bothered, OP is obviously someone who lacks basic understanding of not just politics but the world and the human condition also, the political opinions he presents are laughable past the age of 13

World and herd. You'd think the spell checker would contain those words wouldn't you.

All you've done is provide nonsensical examples of your urges to commit crimes/contribute nothing to society. Return with valid argument

Hundreds of thousands of years ago, there were no borders, because no nations were formed yet. People mostly lived in their small tribes, which were sometimes territorial, which means that they still had some type of borders for which they fought for. When people became smarter due to evolution, they started to live together and eventually formed nations with their lands and borders. We are a part of our nations and we make our countries great. We vote for people to rule over these lands. We should decide who gets to live in our lands and who doesn't.

You didn't even give a single logical reason why we shouldn't have borders. We actually have very different nations with very different cultures, for which our ancestors gave their lives away. Give me at least some real reasons why we shouldn't have borders because having borders and being territorial is in our genes as animals. We simply can't live together under a single nation. Humans don't work like that. A nation without its borders isn't a nation at all.

Imagine living under the same rule as Chinese people, which are being monitored constantly by their government and have basically no freedom of speech, unlike the USA.

>real yugoslavia has never been tried

This is my home country where my people have lived for thousands of years. Non-finno-ugric people dont belong here.

>be from england
>want to have open borders
mfw your country can't even handle the EU

Those 'nations and cultures' only developed out of isolation. Our ignorance of each other is what creates violence. No borders would go a long way to mitigating this.

Our territory should be a small plot of private property with sufficient gap in between that and the private property of others to halt impediment to public access of lands

Why would we automatically revert to Chinese law? I clearly said the EU/UN would provide a good framework

Oh, now you're just gonna greentext? Nice, mature.

Bit non-finno-ugric people already live there

You can't eat ideas. Here's a idea, go a few day without food and water and see how your priorities change. It takes more than an acre of land per year to feed one person. In the UK there are 44 million acres of land but a population reaching 70 million. It survives on food imported from other country's that have spare food. But if that food was needed in their own country's. The UK would starve. Without borders you cannot plan spare food.

we die every few decades to have laws that aren't written by someone else, fags in america can't drink in public and make their own alcohol, we don't want those laws, we want ours that say we can drink in public and we can make our own alcohol in our back yard, cultures are different, but what would a multiculturalist know about culture

48% of people voted remain

>responding to greentex strawman with a greentext strawman means I'm immature
also nice spacing faggot

No... you completely missed my point.

>Have idea from more advanced society on utilising arable soil
>Go to area of land in less-advanced society not utilising arable soil and teach locals how to utilise arable soil
>???
>Food for all

I've already posted that there is enough to feed the world.

Where did I say American law would be adopted? And a multiculturalist would know a lot about culture, as they have experience with many of them

My country is my birthrate who are YOU to take that away from me.

*birthright

It makes long writing more legible and easier to proofread. If you can still find your mouse from under the puddle of your own drool, I suggest you exit Jow Forums, go outside and enjoy some of the fresh air PLANET EARTH has to offer.

It doesn't motivate reconciliation it motivates conflict and social abandonment. UN/EU will collapse in a decade because people aren't in agreement. We already have people wanting to leave EU and UN.

My planet is my birthright who are YOU to take that away from me.

so your country is split in half over one decision and you think the entire world will agree on what laws we should all have? who would write those laws and who would vote for them and if 90% of the world thinks we should have a global law against jews does that mean we should kill all jews or disreguard the will of the people? will the laws be forced upon entire nations that don't want them? and if a certain culture doesn't respect them how will that pan out?

>as they have experience with many of them
no, you have experienced one culture in your life and that is metropolitan culture, I traveled the world and actually learned about traditions and laws of other cultures, you'd be surprised at how many things you do in your country are frowned upon in others, you'd be perfectly fine in any big city tho they're all the same

no it's not, not a single one of your ancestors died for planet earth

Do you know what fertiliser is, artificial nitrogen based fertilizer was first discovered at the end of the nineteenth century. Without it the world population would be much less. Natural fertilizer won't produce the yields. Yet it is also responsible for polluting the rivers and upsetting the natural balance. There are no magic formulas some things you cannot do.

That's because global borderlessness hasn't been achieved yet! There are still groups isolated from the fruits of life

Isn't territory of a nation private property?

fuck off, I don't want you here, the brits coming to exit are too much already, they are literally destroying our historic monuments every year, you have no right to go anywhere outside of your country, and certainly have no right to open MY borders, feel free to destroy your own country by opening it's borders tho, I don't care about your country

Global birthrates would slow down as all groups would be given a fair shake at what is currently exclusive to a small group at the moment

The laws already exist, people don't naturally want to inflict harm on others, they only do because of external influences, lack of borders would mitigate this.

And by combining/reconciling the best of all the cultures we can create a pragmatic global set of laws - a cross-forum of ideas!

They indirectly did, they were subverted into fighting for a small area but in reality they were fighting for planet earth

aaaaaaaaaaaand the truth comes out. You're just being a short-sighted xenophobe

No, if I want to share it with others I cannot, therefore it is not private

ching chong, your opinion is wrong. multiculturalism is an absolute failure, the increased amount of terrorism is absolutely retarded.

food in africa is a geographical and logistical problem, do your research

the fuck are you doing on an alt-right site with those liberal beliefs?

you taking my shit isn't your fair share, it's stealing
do you even realize how complex our laws at the moment are because of how complex the society is
no, I don't want to combine shit, I want my shit, all of my shit and none of other people's shit
no they didn't you're just a faggot that is going to flush their sacrifice down the drain

I'm not xenophobic retard, I love seeing other cultures, I hate cunts like you destroying all of them because I want my kids to see them too

It is not yours it is nation's property. If McDonalds has its property (it probably owns land too) whats different about a state. State owns land and can deside whom to allow in.

There is one critical issue you are overlooking in this utopia. The implementation, how are you realistically going to do this?

Read my fair shake argument above. No borders would reduce geographical and logistical issues. This site existed before 'alt-right' was a thing, lurk moar.

You still have your own small bit of private property, are you even reading my arguments? Let's go one step further to simplifying global societies by eradicating borders. Your me me me attitude isn't conducive to global harmony. You're a relatively advanced individual, start acting like one.

Attached: 43d.png (565x510, 751K)

Why are brits so obsessed with mainland Yore-up?

If you love seeing other cultures, then you'll really love the best of every culture in one place. The way you type makes me think you have an issue with British tourists

You've deprived the entire world of visiting the essential, non-residential land within a 'nation's property'. This is unnatural

Fair point, starting with eradication of physical
(man-made) borders and assistance in areas of the planet that need it the most

Nope, sorry. Nigeria's a rich country, but it's population is poor and facing famine in parts. Why, it also produces the most children per family. Universe 25, country's of the west are declining in population. But bringing in immigrants to adjust that decline. Due to the high birth rates of immigrants. Result unsustainable levels of population in declining civilization's.

Well, that's great, but someone has to agree to it. You'd need to throw the constitution of god-knows-how many sovereign states out of the window before you could even attempt such a feat.

Nigeria suffers from economic drain where its richest (oil tycoons) migrate and keep wealth in western countries. No borders would mitigate this.

>You've deprived the entire world of visiting the essential, non-residential land within a 'nation's property
So what? And they can visit if the state allows. And it is not me it was so since ancient times.

States should not have the power to limit global access to these sites, they should be open to all citizens of planet earth

Think of it less as throwing out constitutions, more combining the best of all constitutions to create the finest set of global laws the world has ever seen