Do you think the world should be run by one governmental system instead of all these separate countries and nations? Then as one entity(the world) we could allocate resources to where they need to be and re-arrange things a bit to be more suited to peaceful relations.. I'm just wondering how to achieve this.. I've heard from other sources it would take something from the 'outside' to attack this world as a whole to bring us together as a world in a united force against it. Yes like what they did in The Watchmen.
I've always loved the idea of a one world state, in theory anyways. But in practice, I can just see it getting cluttered up with insane corruption and the potential for bad stuff to happen on a global level, rather than just a national level. Also, it's a bit hard to actually APPLY, because even if we take down borders there are still very much ethnic divisions and the like that cause conflict regardless of borders. I think that nationalism is a breeding ground for division and this is why I like the idea of a one world state - however, the divisions aren't going to just go away because something as superficial as a countries name has been removed etc. All of this aside, I would think that the best and possibly only way to have a one world state would be global socialism. I know I'm going to get a lot of haters, but I think that if the world pooled all its resources together and distributed them equally throughout the world then a hell of a lot of conflict would be dissolved. On top of this, the incentive for corruption - which would be utterly devastating when the corrupt people in power have the whole world at their hands to exploit and profit from - is fairly well removed with a socialist system. But yeah, I can't imagine that ever, EVER happening
Sorry, but this is an obscene idea. One that brings only death, destruction, and misery to anyone and everyone in it's wake. We can go through history looking at times this very idea has been attempted and not once had anything good come of it.
It's an "interesting" idea for humanity but when you look at a "ideal" model such as the "European Union" it is far from the "utopic" idea that many would have preferred. When you go to England you don't think "yeah this is the European Union", you think "this is the UK", same goes when you are in Italy, France, etc. Now of course the main objective of those who proposed the European Union wasn't to transcend cultural lines, however you know that it would be something they would prefer. Even in our own country (US) you feel very different being in one part of the nation compared to another. A one world government is far easier said than done. Things like, who will lead it? What language, will influence be based on population (in that case representatives from India and China would probably hold most of the positions of power). What about economics, will a new one be created? Who stands to gain or lose in this? Do Americans trust the security of their own kind to people they truly don't know to well or can't even relate to? Will one people's ego be transcended upon, and if so will they retaliate, perhaps not participate or help out as much out of spite? So on and so forth. Star Trek isn't actually reality, not on this planet in the same way (at least for a long long long longgg time), that's for sure. As for the question itself: Yes I think it should, I'd like that
I think that is inevitable that we will all join together as one, otherwise we'll be doomed to fight each other until the sun explodes. Eventually we'll hit a plateau of progression and we will not be able to move forward unless we join together. I think the problem with getting there right now, is that we live in an immature society and our leaders are just as immature. We need a government that is driven by love and peace, I think. Right now it seems we're more concerned with defending our broken society than fixing it. We need to redirect our focus inwardly and realize just how bad things are inside the country. It seems our entire country and government has a hefty ego that we need to dissolve somehow, before we can do anything beneficial as a society, for us or the rest of the world. If things continue as they are, if we continue to have a government that is driven by hate, fear and dominance, then we will all be eventually consumed by it. You can't punch someone in the face and expect them to want to be your friend. Violence will lead to more violence and more violence and more violence. We will never see peace or unity on this path, only more war and division. But that's just what I think lol..
No. That kind of central management might work out on paper, but in practice it is completely unreasonable... It's placing too much power in one place. There are already many governments that cannot handle themselves on a much smaller, national scale. I think that a 'One World Government' would not work out... at all.
Keep in mind a one government world doesn't mean one culture. I don't see why there would be a problem. Ideally one government should just mean world peace. You have one supreme government put above all the rest. It doesn't mean replacing all the governments with one and homogenizing the cultures It should just mean you have one top government which would prevent things like wars amongst each other or poverty, things like that. At least that was my thought of what it would be like. Seems like some of you guys are thinking something like this would happen by force, rather than just a coming together of all nations and people.
A one world government sounds good, in theory, but that would put way too much power in the hands of a few rich people. The people that are chosen to lead would base their decisions on personal beliefs, so would anyone else if given the position, and not solely on what's best for the populace.
Still can't work, the world is just far too diverse for a one world government. What might seem like a good idea for an inuit in Alaska, isn't going to jive with rural farmer in Timbuktu. Look at the U.S.A., you guys can't even agree on simple issues. A one world government should have been formed from the dawn of time. It's just too late to even fathom something like that much less put it into practice. Every country should just mind its own business and try to do what's best for its citizens.
While we are all run by many ruling systems, there are rules we are all ruled by. We are all going to die, etc.
Free healthcare, seems like a no brainer to me. I don't see why you guys are making a federal case out of it.
You name it, haha, pretty much anything.... We can barely even agree on the extent of our own freedoms...
Should the troops come home?, fuck, why not. Saddam is dead. Yall are just fucking up a country that's already royally fucked up. Admit you fucked up and leave. Who ever heard of more soldiers dying AFTER a war than DURING?
Only problem is that "free healthcare" is going to cost one trillion dollars and last i checked our current national debt is 12 trillion, so its probably not a good idea to throw away another trillion, when we already have the best health care system in the world.
Ironically a good amount of its own citizens can't afford this "worldclass" health care. Why doesn't your government spend some of those millions that it spends daily on the "war", why don't they spend that money on its own citizens? BTW wouldnt it be worth it to spend another trillion on something that would benefit the poor?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs]YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine[/ame]
Forget about Ronald and politics for a second, if you were sick and didn't have money, wouldn't you want someone to take care of you? or would you just accept the fact that because people are poor, no one should give a shit about them.
I would love to see one centralized governing body. However, I think it's unrealistic. Neo-liberal economists already argue that the reason the free market has failed in so many cases is because there is a failure in communication. These failures can occur within a country - imagine that applied globally. On the other hand, if we were all part of the same country governed by the same economic regulations it might encourage communication. Another problem with this theory is - how would it be achieved. Which heads of state do you know who would be willing to give up their authority? If they will not give it willingly, does that mean it requires military action? Whose military and what's to keep it from becoming a militaristic regime? Perhaps a more achievable goal would be to encourage better communication between states. This would help the world to better recognize and address certain problems.