How I see the World. Suggestions/thoughts?

Question

I see the world poorly. Almost every square inch of land above water belongs to some country. Is that cool? No.

Have any of you noticed that we are all born into a certain government with no choice of if we want to be there.

So my Idea. There should be large areas of land in every continent that we put aside. No countries there. A place where people can just live without the government. On their own terms. A utopia for the average man.

And if you think they would just be havens for crime, it was the government and society that made that.

Answer 1

government and society created the term "crime" to use for anything that is unacceptable. if there was no central idea of right and wrong- one could do anything in his/her power- without being held responsible for the negative externalities. example: someone who wanted to have s*x with a woman may or may not feel obliged to ask first... and the woman, although victimized, could do nothing about it. It would be a true "survival of the fittest" setting. as along as people had the choice to go to this island, or leave it... than i wouldn't particularly see a problem with it... but i have a feeling that if left unchecked, it would turn into a mormon fundamentalist sect :P

Answer 2

I've actually thought of the same thing. It's pretty crazy how the majority of our lives are determined by where we are born. It can mean the difference between being poor or rich, dictated to or free, sick or healthy, etc. It's even more complex than that really but its hard to put into words.

I think it would be interesting if some part of the earth was completely free... i'd have to agree and think that crime really wouldn't be so much of an issue. Without disagreeing governments and laws and controversies, people wouldn't have so much anger and desire to hurt others.. and no wars!

Interesting idea, caught my attention because I'd been wondering the same thing.

Answer 3

How nice.. i doubt that could happen.. but nice

Answer 4

Well, although that would be sweet.  Human drama would be inevitable on this "utopia".  Peoples greed, who would buy the land, who would deserve an opportunity to get away while other cannot?  There are too many things that make it not possible, and fair.

Answer 5

Did you ever see the movie "Into the Wild"? I didn't but understand the concept nonetheless. Whether you know it or not you've been influenced by "Romanticism". This 'philosophy' (if that's what you want to call it) holds that society is oppressive and that the norms and standards it creates (whether it does or not is not the question) drains individuals from experiencing reality. Emphasis on the word experience. They believed in a more emotional outlook on life; one that subordinated reason. The only way to be redeemed is by finding a way to transcend, or get beyond, these societies where you then can be free, spontaneous and wild; where they can follow there heart and not so much there head; for society prohibits much of what our feelings would have us do. Essentially this is what the main character of that movie did: he went out into the wild and lived freely...and died of course very soon after.

However, I would like to point out that you have created rules for people to follow if this place were to ever exist. People "living by their own terms"? What if I want to stop people from living by their own terms? What if I want to create a government and rules for people to follow? Are you going to tell me not do such of a thing without contradicting your self? Surely not. Of course you also must consider the fact that women and men will be reproducing. Will those children have anymore of a choice to have been born there than any of us have had a choice to be born into specific countries? And....

Your back to where you started.

Response: That's exactly my point, sir. Their "my terms". I choose to live by them and putting restraints upon them by having a consensus (or a majority vote of disagreement) of the members of this place is nothing shy of what your problem with the government is. You've already made a vote for people decide what I can and cannot do. You've already proved your self wrong. More precisely, you have implicit rules governing this society while prancing around believing their are none. Those rules will prohibit people like the ones I described: people who want to create a government or people who want to live by telling others what to do and when they can do it. I'm only trying to help you see that. I'm not necessarily arguing against anarchism here (I disagree with it, though). I am showing why your PARTICULAR view is flawed.

Answer 6

People can't be trusted there has to be countries and borderlines. Everybody hasn't been raised correctly. Some people are dangerous and they can't be trusted. Islam religions radicals people like that!

Answer 7

It sounds like a wonderful idea, but I don't think it's possible.  IMO the problem with the world is greed and intolerance.  Someone in your utopia would eventually emerge, and out of greed for power fueled by intolerance they would take over the place.  Unfortunately, I see that as the way of mankind.  Even in the animal world there is a hierarchy, there is always one in charge of the others.  I wonder why it's that way.

Interesting question!

Answer 8

i like the utopian concept, i used to want my own island somewhere (but they are all owned, too, and i'm still too poor to buy one)

best argument i have is indian reservations. i used to live in az, near one. they are, technically their own sovreign countries, and are miserably poor and crappy. a few hundred folks just can't produce enough to be 'rich' when the rest of america is so much richer- they have to buy gas and groceries in the usa, but don't earn like we do.

then they got casinos, and now, with free money, they have a cadillac in the front yard, and 3 more wrecked ones in the back yard coz they also like to party. i'm 1/2 native american, so, yeah, that's rascist but i know what i'm talking about... communism, utopism is a great ideal but runs too much against human nature

Answer 9

Yes.  This is called "Anarchy", a big dirty word in the United States, nastier, in some circles than the "C" word. But you know, a lot of very smart people are anarchists.  I think that Americans could benefit to learn something from the wiser anarchists I've spoken to.

You want to see an anarchy that works?  There are a few of them around.  Twelve-step recovery programs, Alcoholics Anonymous and other organizations that follow the same model, are all anarchist in structure.  They are organized, but they have no leadership.  People are elected to official positions in order to serve the people they represent.  There is no government.

The so-called "Quaker" religion, the Society of Friends is a strongly anarchistic community. There are no leaders. Many groups have no pastor. They sit around in a circle, and if someone has something to say, she stands up and says it. Nobody gets to tell her she's right or she's wrong, or sit down and shut up.  Someone may disagree with you, and they may say something later on. But they can't tell you you're wrong.

Are you interested in knowing why we have never achieved utopia?  Oh....well, I'll tell you anyway.  

It's the tug-of-war principle.  If I'm a member of a team pulling on a rope, nobody on my team can tell how hard I'm pulling.  I can slack off, and let everyone else do all the work, and I pay no consequences. There is nothing to make me pull my own weight. In this situation, sadly, the number of people who actually pull their own weight in the absence of any consequences for slacking is smaller than the number of people who will pull their own weight on principle regardless of the consequences.  This is one of countless numbers of analogies that explain why utopia requires a level of integrity, commitment, and cooperation that rarely (if ever) occurs in sufficient proportion to support a utopian (and/or anarchic) social system.  

Communism's basic premise, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is a perfect utopian idea, and, if it weren't for the tug-of-war problem, Communism would have been a roaring success.

It is a fact:  government is a huge contributor to the problems that plague human societies. But ultimately, governments are nothing more than organized groups of people.  If you can't build a government without corruption, I can't imagine how you would build a society that didn't need a government.

But if you prove me wrong, I will nominate you for Emperor of the World! :-D