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

[thedragon232]

On the idea of corrupt and broken government would rebuilding it really be the answer? The way I see it the government is comprised of people doing a job. I feel like this is the same as saying my favorite fast food restaurant messed up my order, looks like its time for them to go out of business and get replaced.

 

[HannesPascal]

There's too many people in the world to create a proper representative democracy (and a direct democracy is impossible), but I think that the UN should become more like EU (which by no means is perfect right now, and shouldn't have won the Nobel peace price you silly Norwegians). Every nation has to have a decent standard of living and roughly the same wages (for the same job). Otherwise corporations will move to poor underdeveloped countries to abuse the cheap labor and creating horrible work environments there and at the same time people will be unemployed in the industrial countries. Also there has to be a better collaboration to fix the environment (global warming, acidification and over-fertilization to name a few) because if we don't do something major soon we might not be able to fix it.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Every answer except the first.

Countries must come to the decision of their own volition
I don't see the whole world ever doing this, or even coming close. There will always be tyrants and oppression. Even where there aren't, unification isn't exactly guaranteed. Look at Canada and the US. There are no plans to incorporate the two, even though they are amicable neighbors who, to my knowledge, have never had a substantive conflict. Maybe 1000 years from now things will be different.

Rich cultural heritages of individual countries is too much to give up
I don't see this as a problem. The US has regional culture of all types, from rodeos to Cajun food. All of it continues freely.

No, it wouldn't stop the conflicts we see now
Correctamundo. Many national borders in the Middle East were drawn almost at random to break up the Ottoman Empire. The groups that were fighting before those lines were drawn would and will continue to fight if those lines are erased. And that's just the Middle East. Armed conflict is not going anywhere. I couldn't find the map I wanted, but here's a different one to illustrate the point: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1925.htm

No, it runs too much of a risk of a Warhammer 40K-like totalitarian government ruling over everyone
Meh. It's in the nature of government to restrict more and more, take more and more, etc. Whether global or only a few square miles, the effect is the same.

I ain't being bunched in the same group as those darn *insert nationality your nationality has a rivalry/feud with here*!
Doesn't apply to me personally, but hate is alive and well in the world. If you drew up a list of benefits so good it was scarcely believable, plenty would still opt out, simply because joining would require putting aside prejudices.

 

[Billy D Williams]

Holy Roman Empire. 'Nugh said.

OK, fine, I will elaborate. The Roman Empire got to big and it completely collapsed because it couldn't maintain control and stability. Granted, a lot of that was due to limitations of the world back then, especially in terms of communication but there are a hosts of other problems involved when a country gets to big.

 

[Olas]

Having a world government and having individual countries are not mutually exclusive. Nations could even have their own governments within the global government. Kinda like how in the US we have a federal government, but also individual state and local governments. The Global Government would probably be more dedicated to humanitarian laws and human rights around the world, while leaving more nuanced politics to the lower levels.

 

[Risingblade]

So instead of a small groups groups controlling their own little area each, you want one small group controlling everything? D:

 

[Flames66]

Over time, centralization and unification is the way to go.
There's nothing sacred about the geographical area of a nation, no. Cultural boundaries are much more flexible than national borders.

I disagree. I believe that Government is far too over-centralised already and needs to be split up into small regional areas. If there was a single world government nothing would ever get done on a local level, privacy would take another massive hit and there would be even less options to opt out.

 

[red_bedbug]

I wish one could say yes... then again, look at what's happening in Europe right now. The EU keeps threatening to fall apart, due to economic reasons, yes, but also for reasons tied to a series of smaller factors which can be boiled down to "nobody wanted to give up their national sovereignty". (Well, not entirely, but that did play a rather big factor as well)

Also, there is the cultural factor to take into account. Some countries have a culture, a historical background so different than what we are used to, that trying to impose a certain viewpoint would just create a whole different set of conflicts.

Take this as an example: in Europe, we are exposed to American culture constantly, due to the exportation of movies and media from the USA. We are rather familiar with it, despite never having been there. A lot of it are stereotypes, yes, but we still get a taste for it. A couple of very good friends of mine are Canadia and from the US, as well.

Yet, one time, we were sharing a compartment in a night train with some Americans, and we started talking about culture, and stereotypes and stuff, and all of a sudden, one of them went: "By the was, I was so shocked to see so many naked statues everywhere! We were in Belgium, and there was a statue of this naked kid everywhere, and he is... well... he is peeing! And even your government offices have penises outside of them!"

Me: "I'm sorry, what now?"

"Yes, we saw them in Rome! That would never be allowed in the US! I mean, here, you could not have them in your front garden!"

It literally took us more than a minute to realise they were talking about the renaissance sculptures that are placed just about everywhere in Rome, which in my mind don't even count as being properly naked. Similarly, when I go through the "Getting Crap Past the Radar" section on TVTropes.com, very often my reaction is: "wait, that's supposed to be censored? Why?"

it may seem like a very minor thing, and yet, if you were to impose those same regulations in Europe, people would not understand, and get pissed off. And it works the other way around, of course. It's not even a question about preserving cultural heritage, which could be arranged, but simply that there is no way to harmonise all our cultural differences into one country.

So at the moment, unfortunately, no. But in a few hundreds of years? Perhaps.

 

[Da Orky Man]

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.

As long as space travel takes off then that may well happen, but on Earth, I imagine we may see something slightly different. Though we may experience various nations splitting up, like Scotland/Wales in the UK and Basque Country from Spain, there is also a trend towards nation-states pooling sovereignty and executive power, the most developed of which may be the European Union, unless you count the development of the USA.

 

[red_bedbug]

I opted for the "Rich cultural heritage blah blah" option but my opinion is more complex than that. A country is more than a boarder or a flag, more than a mere identity, it is like a living thing that shapes the values and ideas of its people. This gives people from different countries different viewpoints and perspectives and this diversity is important for human beings to understand and have perspective on themselves. In addition many successful policies and ideas that have been implemented by governments, like initiatives on crime, or welfare, have come from one country successfully running a pilot scheme, it working well, and other countries seeing this, comparing it to their own system and adopting a different approach. If you had a single unified world with a single government there would be no comparison, it would be impossible to judge whether polcies were truly effective as you would have no alternative to compare it to.

Or yeah, this. Basically sums up much better what I was trying to say in my previous post.

 

[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.

As long as space travel takes off then that may well happen, but on Earth, I imagine we may see something slightly different. Though we may experience various nations splitting up, like Scotland/Wales in the UK and Basque Country from Spain, there is also a trend towards nation-states pooling sovereignty and executive power, the most developed of which may be the European Union, unless you count the development of the USA.

I'll agree with that. I don't think a single nation state could exist, but numerous nations falling under the umbrella of a single organization, and signing laws under that entity, could exist. I don't like the idea of this though, because it decreases the power of the people. We've already seen this with ACTA.

 

[Da Orky Man]

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.

As long as space travel takes off then that may well happen, but on Earth, I imagine we may see something slightly different. Though we may experience various nations splitting up, like Scotland/Wales in the UK and Basque Country from Spain, there is also a trend towards nation-states pooling sovereignty and executive power, the most developed of which may be the European Union, unless you count the development of the USA.

I'll agree with that. I don't think a single nation state could exist, but numerous nations falling under the umbrella of a single organization, and signing laws under that entity, could exist. I don't like the idea of this though, because it decreases the power of the people. We've already seen this with ACTA.

Actually, in the EU, which I mentioned as a model for this thing, ACTA was turned down in the European Parliament, effectively rejecting it by a vote of 478 noes, 39 ayes and 165 abstentions, a fairly clear-cut vote.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

There are many countries in this world (MENA, East Africa, Central Africa mostly) that have tribal problems and struggle to function as it is. Now replace their govts with one entirely different to them and you have a tremendous problem!

Think of the favour you'd be giving to guerilla fighters if they have no borders to cross... free reign to any area where they can strike people who are not like them!

 

[AngloDoom]

If there are still great big cultural differences between countries that are scattered about all over the planet, then we're going to need different officials who are attuned to the different needs, wants, and expectations of different cultures - we'd essentially just be drawing lines in the sand all over again but giving them a different name.

 

[Verlander]

I think the way the EU works is pretty good in general (still needs to iron out the bugs)but this is how I see it working -

Countries/Cultures have a high level of autonomy, but can't pass anything that directly contravenes a primary constitution.

Interstate issues would be dealt with in court, rather than war

Poverty to be addressed with social regulations/Charity to be regulated by government, not by independent companies

Military replaced by hybrid police/militarised force, designed for terrorists and radicals

Free movement of workforce/one tax rate




I don't think that countries would loose identity, and I think that while initially you'll have an influx of immigrants into the current "rich" spots (USA, UK, Germany etc) a well prepared top level government and regional government would be able to create incentives to stay put... and ultimately, those with foresight would make a fortune in places that currently are investor friendly (*cough*mostofAfrica*cough*)

 

[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.

As long as space travel takes off then that may well happen, but on Earth, I imagine we may see something slightly different. Though we may experience various nations splitting up, like Scotland/Wales in the UK and Basque Country from Spain, there is also a trend towards nation-states pooling sovereignty and executive power, the most developed of which may be the European Union, unless you count the development of the USA.

I'll agree with that. I don't think a single nation state could exist, but numerous nations falling under the umbrella of a single organization, and signing laws under that entity, could exist. I don't like the idea of this though, because it decreases the power of the people. We've already seen this with ACTA.

Actually, in the EU, which I mentioned as a model for this thing, ACTA was turned down in the European Parliament, effectively rejecting it by a vote of 478 noes, 39 ayes and 165 abstentions, a fairly clear-cut vote.

I'm aware, and I was relieved that things turned out well there. It's the idea that this entity has this authority that frightens me. Obama has attempted to enforce policies through treaties without consulting congress, something clearly illegal here. After all, Congress represents the people, so overriding them is dangerous. I think this would be the closest to a "one world government" we'd ever see, though I still think the concept is inherently impossible.

 

[iwinatlife]

where is the Yes because due problems with stupidly ineffective and ineffecient government means we need a Warhammer 40k totalitarian state to order the world

 

[Strazdas]

I have been a long proponent of United Earth Federation. so i guess you know what i vited for. though i dont agree with the title. Countries are more lines drawn by cultures that at the point of drawing the line were xenophobic of eachother. and well wars.

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.

Really? I didnt knew that 1.6 billion is more than half of 7+ billion.
As for the "undemocratic small countries", well, if they are willing to join the UN they are willing to run with democracy.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Honestly I think this sidesteps the issue. Removing international disputes won't change localised issues ballooning into something worse.
The problem is in group/out group dynamics are heavily influenced by social standards but also a general human thing and not something we can solve by removing national borders, inter city conflicts attest to that and while the idea seems nice on paper what would actually change in terms of leadership? Without massive and novel reforms we're looking at the same old same old, people will still war but it will be faction dependent rather than country. Woo. Which it basically is now anyway, except some surplus people get dragged along because their country is owned by faction X, Y or Z.

 

[Do4600]

We are too ideologically different to unite at this point. What type of government would it be? And then what would the basis be for our laws be? It wouldn't be a democracy, even if it was, it would be voted into another type of government and then the minority would probably revolt.

There is no way to placate the entire earth at this time under a single set of laws or government, the minorities in each decision would be in the billions.