Is A United World Ever Possible?
StormLiong
Join Date: 2002-12-27 Member: 11569Members
Join Date: 2002-12-27 Member: 11569Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">as in a real one world, one country idea</div> The United Nation is suppose to be a platform for a united world in essence. All countries will work out their differences there and hopefully no major wars breakout.
So then why do we have veto power in the council. Why do some nations ignore UN policies on enviroments and human rights? I think most nations just look at the UN as a mere formality to make everything look nice and united.
The ideal united world would be one where you have a single world leader with a world wide policies that are actually followed and enforced. The EU is the closest to this (although the president has no real power). Their policies are followed by the member nations throughout. To the point that some nations like Britain feel that their politics are more controlled by the EU than by their own local goverment.
Which brings me to why the united world will never be possible. For nations to relinquish local control to a higher body is ridiculous to them. IE. To have a free open market policy, the US will never allow that. Thats how it is in the UN now as I see with nations have their own personal agenda in it and not thinking the bigger picture.
Probably the most realistic united world system will be like the US where there is Federal law and State Law. In this case of the united world, you would have international law and national laws. But the united world body handles world defence and other matters of international interest.
So then why do we have veto power in the council. Why do some nations ignore UN policies on enviroments and human rights? I think most nations just look at the UN as a mere formality to make everything look nice and united.
The ideal united world would be one where you have a single world leader with a world wide policies that are actually followed and enforced. The EU is the closest to this (although the president has no real power). Their policies are followed by the member nations throughout. To the point that some nations like Britain feel that their politics are more controlled by the EU than by their own local goverment.
Which brings me to why the united world will never be possible. For nations to relinquish local control to a higher body is ridiculous to them. IE. To have a free open market policy, the US will never allow that. Thats how it is in the UN now as I see with nations have their own personal agenda in it and not thinking the bigger picture.
Probably the most realistic united world system will be like the US where there is Federal law and State Law. In this case of the united world, you would have international law and national laws. But the united world body handles world defence and other matters of international interest.
Comments
Of course a United World is possible, seriously, read a sci-fi book. No, seriously. Starship Troopers is a good start. A world ruled by citizens (people who VOLUNTARILY serve in the military) would be feasible, since citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, and are large and powerful enough to uphold those rights and responsibilities.
The question isn't if, it's when. The fastest way there would be a growing, massive economic trading bloc that was eventually assimilated into a coalition of markets and semi-autonomous political entities.
The best thing about having several nations is that people have to ability to determine their own political system. In a united world, with 6+ billion people, your vote really doesn't matter. Power would be concentrated in an even smaller group of people.
In the United States, we have three branches of government: executive, judicial, and legislative. We have three branches in order to keep checks and balances in place, to make sure no individual or group becomes too powerful. We also have a federal system, so that individual states can tailor laws to fit the people who are governed by them. I think that the separation of people into nations serves a similiar purpose.
I think the UN is supposed to unite the world, in the sense that it was created to keep peace between nations. Diplomacy and non-violence is one of the main goals of the UN for international relations. I don't think it was created to unite the world into a single state.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->StormLiong, the United States would never permit free, open markets? Are you kidding me? Of all the post-industrial nations, we've got the most capitalist system in the world. And that's ****ing awesome.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing is, if all the nations of the world merged together, I doubt our economic system would be as capitalist as it is now.
Capitalism isn't about trade between sovereign political entities, it's about expansion while each generation entrenches itself firmly within the Establishment. So for capitalism to survive, you have to colonize space. Or obliterate the earth so we have to keep rebuilding civilization.
Money has been eliminated in the federation. However, the federation is very rich, and still uses currency when dealing with external empires, just not within themselves.
Pretty similar to what allyourhive said. A socialist or communist like system, but with external stimulation from a capitalist like system with other empires.
Well said. I can add to that with another quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Winston Churchill+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Winston Churchill)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol. Or not. That's actually quite scary that someone actually thinks it would be a GOOD thing to have a single world leader.
Also, what if the world government sucks? There's nowhere to go if you don't like it...
Lol. Or not. That's actually quite scary that someone actually thinks it would be a GOOD thing to have a single world leader.
Also, what if the world government sucks? There's nowhere to go if you don't like it... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) Mars
b) Antarctica
c) Canada
Lol. Or not. That's actually quite scary that someone actually thinks it would be a GOOD thing to have a single world leader.
Also, what if the world government sucks? There's nowhere to go if you don't like it... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) Mars
b) Antarctica
c) Canada <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
but what if the world government IS Canada? (cue thunder) <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yup. And since people dont want to share power and wealth, it will never work as long as that system can be abused.
TBH it'll take a 3-mile wide chunk of metal and rock to make us forget our pathetic differences (which we ourselves made) or a bunch of little green men with rayguns... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Looking at how things are now, I'd say that a "united world" could only ever be formal, ie nothing would really change; too many would be opposed to any ideas the leader(s) would get that are either against tradition or religion.
Sure, right now, we have petty passions and pride that whisper in our ears to betray, mistrust, and hate. We can't get along, but to say we NEVER will is pretty speculative. Along the lines of saying we'd NEVER be able to travel at speeds of 50 miles per hour, becuase that would kill us instantly, or that we'd NEVER be able to fly.
In another 10,000 years, we may focus our energies toward other things besides monotary or political gains. Maybe even sooner than that, if we don't kill ourselves before then.
But make no mistake, conquering the known world has been a sought after prize through the ages, and no amount of liberal thinking on our parts is going to assuage that lust for power in the heart of man, at least for now.
I can imagine one country submitting itself to the aliens while another fighting against it. (well assuming the invading aliens take prisoners)
too much religion has never led to any good, NEVER.
religion make people dumb.
i read that some people in the USA wanted the bible to be used in school. WTH? do they want another fanatic country like some of the islam ones?
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed. But education is bad. The smarter the masses are in general, the harder they are to lie to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said.
Even in Europe, with the EU - a mild form of collective "government". Would you rather be called a "citizen under the EU"...or "German" (insert appropriate nationality)?
Group of soccer moms > Global unification?
I know soccer moms are the purest form of evil... but how would they disrupt such a thing?
<!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo-->