Poll: Countries are just lines drawn in the sand with a stick

[Carpenter]

Yes and money is just paper and all that.
People sure feel smart saying these things but it's never quite that simple. Yeah the "world without borders" idea sounds nice and interesting until you actually put thought into the concept.

What laws would this one nation world have? Who decides those laws? What about cultural difference, is it wrong for different groups to have different cultures and laws that apply to their culture?

If you say there are no borders but every group of people have their own culture, leaders, set of laws, and way of life, than you pretty much described the world the way it is now.


People can fantasize about a star trek utopia all they want, the fact is that it doesn't sound pleasant. Do people understand evolution anymore? We don't get stronger as a species by imposing our will until we all become one mass, we get stronger through division and individuality because it allows for people to take different paths and develop in different ways.

No human or group of humans knows what's right for all of humanity. No human or group of humans should have the right to rule over or decide what all of humanity should do or how they should act.

We are capable, as a species, of ending massive wars without becoming one big massive country that spans the entire planet. War is not an issue that gets solved through a one culture world, in fact a one culture world is the horrific result of a massive war with only one surviving culture.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

If everyone is able to agree on laws, and the numerous sub-governments that will come about don't mimic the current governments we have now, then it will be fine. But we're still working on the first bit. Working really hard.

Edit: Also you might want to stick this in R&P. Just a thought.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Way too much power for even 50 people to handle. No.

Not just that, if you don't like the government, where else can you go? Oh wait, you can't go anywhere because the government is everywhere.

 

[frizzlebyte]

While I have nothing against a united world government in theoretical terms, in practice I believe that it would lead to a State that values oppression and conformity above all else. The loss of living cultural heritage and diversity would be catastrophic, in my opinion.

There are worse things than wars and death. Living in a tightly controlled, beige and grey world is one of them.

 

[Carpenter]

A single government would be the biggest nightmare for democracy. And, even if a democratic system were successfully implemented, it would leave even greater numbers dissatisfied than we see in the collected democracies now.

This would increase conflict, rather than decrease it.

You pretty much couldn't do it as a democracy at all

An oligarchy (preferably selected by merit rather than the more... traditional methods) presiding over a large council of elected regional representatives might be able to pull it off from an organizational standpoint, but I give that setup a snowballs chance in hell of making it out of their first year before some asshats start to corrupt the system.

And who decides what qualities are looked for in leaders?

It sounds like the system you described is corrupt from the very start, no reason for "asshats" to do any work.

No system of government is perfect or anywhere near close enough to perfect for it to be worthy of being enforced over all of humanity.

We can only create new system of governments (the type that none of us are currently able to imagine) if we allow human creativity to flourish. That can never be done if we are imposing old world ideas on an entire population. Our current system is broken enough (and needs to be completely demolished and reworked at best) so replacing it with an even more barbaric system and forcing that system on all other countries seems like the kind of horrendous idea that comes from a complete lack of creativity and original thought.

 

[Carpenter]

If everyone is able to agree on laws, and the numerous sub-governments that will come about don't mimic the current governments we have now, then it will be fine. But we're still working on the first bit. Working really hard.

And what on earth leads you to believe that every country agreeing on a set of laws is a good thing?

Do you honestly think that you have it so figured out that we can just start imposing our laws unto the rest of the world?

Even if we managed to manipulate people into agreeing with those laws, it doesn't make it right. People have been manipulated into thinking that eating buckets of crap is something they want to do.

 

[Queen Michael]

To be honest, I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about this kind of thing to be able to give an answer.

 

[Carpenter]

While I have nothing against a united world government in theoretical terms, in practice I believe that it would lead to a State that values oppression and conformity above all else. The loss of living cultural heritage and diversity would be catastrophic, in my opinion.

There are worse things than wars and death. Living in a tightly controlled, beige and grey world is one of them.

Exactly.

Keep in mind that this theoretical reality is not without war, the war would just be called "crime" and "law enforcement"

We are not too far away from that concept, our current president (if you live in the US) is constantly trying to call war by other names and make it seem like it's the right thing to do.

 

[Carpenter]

To be honest, I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about this kind of thing to be able to give an answer.

That's not stopping everyone else here.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Do you honestly think that you have it so figured out that we can just start imposing our laws unto the rest of the world?
Even if we managed to manipulate people into agreeing with those laws, it doesn't make it right. People have been manipulated into thinking that eating buckets of crap is something they want to do.

agree

Because nothing is so manipulative and tyrannical as getting people to compare/contrast their opinions against one another and agree on a compromise.

 

[Platypus540]

This should happen, but not for a long time. A looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. Like a good thousand plus years or so, since there'd be no need for a planetary government unless there was a whole lot of interplanetary or even (theoretically) interstellar politics going on. Before then it would basically just be a militarized U.N.

 

[spartan231490]

absolutely not. Cultural heritage, totalitarian government, it wouldn't even slow down the conflicts we have now, and since none of us can agree on what socio-economic structure or gun laws or a thousand other things it's a horrible idea.

 

[Fox12]

Never gonna happen. In fact, we're going to become more fractured. And that's a good thing.

Assuming we live long enough to colonize the stars we'll eventually see numerous nations/colonies on numerous planets, all with their own culture and history. It'll be like the colonial period, but a million times larger, and hopefully without the destruction of Native American and Aborigines.

 

[Heronblade]

snip

And who decides what qualities are looked for in leaders?

It sounds like the system you described is corrupt from the very start, no reason for "asshats" to do any work.

No system of government is perfect or anywhere near close enough to perfect for it to be worthy of being enforced over all of humanity.

We can only create new system of governments (the type that none of us are currently able to imagine) if we allow human creativity to flourish. That can never be done if we are imposing old world ideas on an entire population. Our current system is broken enough (and needs to be completely demolished and reworked at best) so replacing it with an even more barbaric system and forcing that system on all other countries seems like the kind of horrendous idea that comes from a complete lack of creativity and original thought.

Barbaric? no
Dangerous? hell yes

I knew it was flawed from the start and openly admitted as such, there's no need to insult me in your objection.

Look, running a governmental body that obscenely large is pretty much impossible to do via a large committee. Nothing would ever get done. So you need an individual or small group of individuals with power over major decisions.

For similar reasons, if the individual(s) at the top of such a large body are primarily subject to the random whims of the majority populus, wise decisions will never be made, just statistically popular ones. This in turn leads to journalists being the ones ultimately affecting policy. (The US government somehow manages to serve as a prime example of all of these issues) This is not to say that the leaders in question should be ignoring the people's desires, just that being forced to bow to them every time simply doesn't cut it.

What the system I mentioned needs in order to work is some means to ensure that highly talented individuals with a very strong dedication to serving the people as a whole are those that make it into the upper leadership roles. Frankly, I have no idea how to reliably accomplish that, but elections sure as hell don't do the trick.

And no, what I had in mind would not stifle creativity in any manner, at least if it was working as intended. A somewhat low degree of political freedom does not in this case go hand in hand with a low degree of personal freedom.

EDIT: On review, it seems you were speaking specifically of creativity in terms of political systems. Perhaps it would help if you were aware that this system would only be rigid at the top. Individual regions have a great deal to say in terms of how they manage themselves.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Not unless you want to have a dictatorship government.

The two biggest powers in the world are America and China.

America is a democracy (a corporate corrupt one, but still).
China is a Dictatorship in practice and a Republic by name.

In order for the world to combine one of these nations government would need to be chosen to start the creation of the new government,

However any voting process for who's government is selected would outcome in China's favour.

If it was done by single country vote (1 country 1 vote) well there are allot more (small) anit-Amreican countries than pro-Amreican, that would vote China just not to have America in charge.

If the voting was done on an individual human basis, well china is the most populous country on the planet and can pretty much out vote the rest of the world on it's own.

So you'd end up in "fake Republic" Dictatorship.

 

[Abomination]

As Dominion Emperor of Humanity I shall strive for a goat in every yard and a thatch roof over every head!

What I'm trying to say is that it'd be impossible with democracy and would require a dictatorship to even function in the slightest. The dictator would need to be a stable force though, potentially kept alive with advanced medical technology to enforce some measure of stability beyond a single person's reign.

It would only be feasible if we were colonizing other planets as well or have at least encountered another sentient life form for us to unite against.

 

[gim73]

Yes please, sign me up?

Oh wait, whose government would it be? We'd like to think it would be a democracy with freedom of religion and all that good stuff, but for all we know it could be under sharia law or some other monsterous institution. Even our 'enlightened' first world countries do their best to strip away freedom from the people. Eugenics was a thing. Sterilizing homosexuals was a thing. Slavery was a thing. Hell, government has actively worked to limit freedom on the internet and give more power to certain businesses.

A one world government would devour it's own people until the people rose up and brought it down.

 

[nepheleim]

You're confusing the notion of a country being a set landmass (borders) with a country being a commonality of culture and heritage. We are increasingly globalizing and mixing these cultures and heritage, but you still have (in even the most diversified places) a common core culture. Whether unique to the people, or unique to the locale (think Oakland, California - primarily black and asian, with easily the largest percentage of pacific islander in the US. They may not share a common ethnic heritage, but they share a common Oakland culture.) their culture isn't something that can be readily assimilated into a historically confucian culture.

 

[Carpenter]

Do you honestly think that you have it so figured out that we can just start imposing our laws unto the rest of the world?
Even if we managed to manipulate people into agreeing with those laws, it doesn't make it right. People have been manipulated into thinking that eating buckets of crap is something they want to do.

agree

Because nothing is so manipulative and tyrannical as getting people to compare/contrast their opinions against one another and agree on a compromise.

I never said nothing is more manipulative. Your strawman argument is pretty manipulative on it's own, why am I not shocked that it's a tactic you seem comfortable with?

Who says another culture needs to compromise their beliefs for yours? Does that mean you will compromise your beliefs for them? Many countries have strict restrictions on what women are allowed to do, if we enacted this fantasy "one world government" would you be willing to make a compromise on that?
How about this, they allow women to walk around without being covered up and in exchange it becomes global law that a man must escort a women if she leaves the home.

Let me guess, you don't feel that would be fair. Why? Because it would be insanity. Guess what, that's their culture, they know of nothing else, it's what they see as moral and right. You are not the moral authority, you are allowed to believe it's barbaric and wrong but you have no real authority to change their way of life when you're not the one that has to live where they have to live. You don't have to experience their world nor do they have to experience yours.

See people always talk about "compromise" but it's just an excuse to force your own views on others, it's never used as a platform to change your own laws and beliefs.

 

[Carpenter]

snip

And who decides what qualities are looked for in leaders?

It sounds like the system you described is corrupt from the very start, no reason for "asshats" to do any work.

No system of government is perfect or anywhere near close enough to perfect for it to be worthy of being enforced over all of humanity.

We can only create new system of governments (the type that none of us are currently able to imagine) if we allow human creativity to flourish. That can never be done if we are imposing old world ideas on an entire population. Our current system is broken enough (and needs to be completely demolished and reworked at best) so replacing it with an even more barbaric system and forcing that system on all other countries seems like the kind of horrendous idea that comes from a complete lack of creativity and original thought.

Barbaric? no
Dangerous? hell yes

I knew it was flawed from the start and openly admitted as such, there's no need to insult me in your objection.

Look, running a governmental body that obscenely large is pretty much impossible to do via a large committee. Nothing would ever get done. So you need an individual or small group of individuals with power over major decisions.

For similar reasons, if the individual(s) at the top of such a large body are primarily subject to the random whims of the majority populus, wise decisions will never be made, just statistically popular ones. This in turn leads to journalists being the ones ultimately affecting policy. (The US government somehow manages to serve as a prime example of all of these issues) This is not to say that the leaders in question should be ignoring the people's desires, just that being forced to bow to them every time simply doesn't cut it.

What the system I mentioned needs in order to work is some means to ensure that highly talented individuals with a very strong dedication to serving the people as a whole are those that make it into the upper leadership roles. Frankly, I have no idea how to reliably accomplish that, but elections sure as hell don't do the trick.

And no, what I had in mind would not stifle creativity in any manner, at least if it was working as intended. A somewhat low degree of political freedom does not in this case go hand in hand with a low degree of personal freedom.

EDIT: On review, it seems you were speaking specifically of creativity in terms of political systems. Perhaps it would help if you were aware that this system would only be rigid at the top. Individual regions have a great deal to say in terms of how they manage themselves.

You realize that makes no sense right? You can't say the leadership will be "rigid at the top" but people below will have freedom to govern themselves. If that was true, we would have no need for leadership at the top.

You are saying "it's the only way it would work" which is one, an assumption based on a limited worldview (that's not an "insult" that's a statement of fact, every human being has a worldview limited to their experiences, even if those experiences involve information based on from books and the internet) and it also goes with the assumption that we need to make such a system work to begin with.

Historically, the larger and more controlling an empire gets, the more fragile it becomes. A one world government is nice on paper, falls apart quickly when you apply some real thought to how it would work.

Bottom line, no culture has the right to dictate the culture of another. We are never going to agree on everything and that's a good thing because it's how we evolve and create.

No I am not talking about creativity in a political sense, I am saying that such a system would damage the creative ability of humanity. Our ability to create is based on new experiences and that becomes rare if not extinct when we all become one culture following one system of laws or separate system of laws dictated by one body.

We could get an artificial creativity, kind of like those video games they claim are for "creative types" even though it's just a toy where you create things based on the rules and parameters of the game. BTW I think that works great for a video game, it's a hellish nightmare of disempowerment if it were to become our entire reality.