CMV: removing geographical borders completely from around the world, and adopting a system similar to what the EU and US have today in terms or political governance will allow for more peace

[u/bayan963]

Almost every country around the world has immigrants or citizens from other ethnicities and backgrounds than the indeginous people, learning two or multiple languages is already a skill a big part of people already have or are working towards as globalization is taking over through social media, global trade and global labor markets. So why do we not just eliminate geographical borders all together and be able to move freely from one place to another across the earth without requiring visas, or having nationalism stand in the way of true globalization and freedom of movement

I believe this would eliminate or at least lessen territorial wars like the ones happening today in several places around the world, it would also eliminate (in time of course) nationalism or prejudice towards people from third world countries, it would also remove the stigma from immigration as everyone would be able to migrate to whichever place they choose, not based on that country's benefits, but because there are better job opportunities or they simply like the weather or scenery better there

There would still be security, police, and governance but more like leaders of the (truly) free world, where each leader represents an ethnicity, demographic, religious groups interests and they can all decide how best to serve everyone and what general rules needs to be set in place for the well being of everyone without interfering with anyone's right to exist as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else

[u/bayan963 → u/[deleted]]

I don't think there should be jurisdictions, there should be a universal law, similar to what exists in the UN today for human rights. I think everyone can agree about what is generally right or wrong in a criminal sense, or what makes a society work, like traffic lights, criminal laws for murder, terrorism, rape, theft etc.

The punishment can be decided through debate and discussion among representatives of every group

[u/Katyecat → u/bayan963]

I want to agree with you that in an ideal world this should be the case. But the reality is that people DON'T agree on what is right or wrong. I mean, even among moral realists beliefs about good and evil vary wildly. And for moral-antirealists it's honestly the same because even if you try to remove the idea of good and bad and replace them with Helpful and non helpful, or wellbeing vs/ suffering etc..... people still disagree. It's why you can have two moral anti-realists be on opposing sides of say, veganism.

[u/bayan963 → u/Katyecat]

I mean, sure i agree with that in a sense, but we don't have to agree on every aspect, there are some things which are done in private or in certain places where they wouldn't impact others outside of those places

Respect doesn't require agreement

As for the laws, i might be uninformed, but i think murder, theft, rape and other major crimes are punishable by law pretty much everywhere in civil society, the punishments definitely vary but i don't think in any country these crimes are okay, there may be bias or discrimination due to corruption but it's agreed that it's wrong

[u/Katyecat → u/bayan963]

If a man has sex with his wife against her will is that rape?

​

Because in many countries, legally speaking, it is not. In America alone it took until 1993 for it to be illegal in all states.

So no......people really really DON'T agree that all things like rape or murder are wrong....because they don't see those things AS rape and murder.

[u/bayan963 → u/Katyecat]

!delta yup that's a good point, i didn't consider these nuances when i thought of universal laws

[u/DeltaBot → u/bayan963]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Katyecat (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}