A Single Country in the World

[House Balstroko]

I thought about this for a while and think uniting all countries in the world would be beneficial in the long run. Countries are an outdated concept. If we look at our world today, we see increased globalization on all fronts. There is growing international trade, companies are becoming multinational, the internet is used globally to communicate with people all over the world... The one thing that doesn't belong on that list are artificial borders that seclude people into enclaves not of their choosing. I know there is a lot of protectionism going on with people wanting to preserve culture and language and feel that due to ideology these things wouldn't work, but I disagree and believe these issues do not hamper globalization.

Here are some of the benefits:

1. True multiculturalism: It is high time people embrace diversity. 

2. Tackling global issues: As a single nation, any problem that pops up instantly becomes a global problem, therefore it can be tackled collectively.

3.Greater income equality: Since every one falls under one banner, wealth can be distributed more evenly.

4. Expanding humanity's presence in space: Earth will always be our home and we should take good care of it. That being said, the future lies in space. We need to establis settlements on other worlds so that humanity can thrive without being constricted by the limited resources of the Earth.

5. Less Conflict: Every squabble becomes a global issue, therefore can be tackled without the gridlock of the current setup.

6.Standardization: There are too many discrepancies between countries such as laws, language, units of measurement, racial and sexual tolerance that can be universally applied for the benefit of all.

7. Greater Social Mobility: By having a single nation, there would be no need to go through lengthy immigration procedures to migrate to a different locale. People would be able to choose there location via personal preference.

I do believe certain sacrifices would have to be made in order to achieve it.

- Language: Very controversial, but I believe English should become the global language since it's been the dominant one since the industrial revolution. Adopting any other language would become a long hassle as we would have to drastically change the current setup. That being said regional languages should be preserved and maintained.

-Center of Power: Citizens can choose what the capital city will be. This can be adjusted to avoid preferential treatment.

-Cultural Values: Progressive ideas should be adopted. Discriminating against individuals on the basis of gender, ethnicity or religion will not be tolerated.

 

This is all wishful thinking on my part, but I do believe that we would be better off like this.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

So we're talking a Single World State, rather than the abolition of the State (as per Marxism) generally?

Language, more than anything else, is the true killer here. Simply saying that English is dominant so everyone else ought to use English overlooks several problems:

• English is the international language of commerce. Commerce does not equal education, culture, or politics (a hundred years ago, the international diplomatic language was French).
• Language evolves to fit society - you're taking a language that has evolved to suit Anglo-Saxon cultural norms, and trying to impose it on societies which have evolved differently, with all the conceptual problems that arise from that. 
• The English language (because of its history) makes no rational sense grammatically. If you want a rational, standardised language, get everyone learning Esperanto. Or Finnish. It's no worse than getting non-English speakers to learn English.

Since we're talking a Single State, with a single currency, there would also have to be permanent financial transfers from the wealthy parts of the world to the poorer parts of the world. Never mind New York subsidising Alabama, or London subsidising Wales, from now on, New York, Alabama, London, and Wales subsidise Africa. Better hope that corruption doesn't become a problem.   

[Larry of the Lawn]

Going to need a sweet name like Fishbone, or They Might Be Giants, or Radville, USA

[Datepalm]

Since at the moment Africa is subsidizing New York, London, Alabama, etc with the exploitation of its resources and labour, that seems par the course. 

[House Balstroko]

49 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

So we're talking a Single World State, rather than the abolition of the State (as per Marxism) generally?

Language, more than anything else, is the true killer here. Simply saying that English is dominant so everyone else ought to use English overlooks several problems:

• English is the international language of commerce. Commerce does not equal education, culture, or politics (a hundred years ago, the international diplomatic language was French).
• Language evolves to fit society - you're taking a language that has evolved to suit Anglo-Saxon cultural norms, and trying to impose it on societies which have evolved differently, with all the conceptual problems that arise from that. 
• The English language (because of its history) makes no rational sense grammatically. If you want a rational, standardised language, get everyone learning Esperanto. Or Finnish. It's no worse than getting non-English speakers to learn English.

Since we're talking a Single State, with a single currency, there would also have to be permanent financial transfers from the wealthy parts of the world to the poorer parts of the world. Never mind New York subsidising Alabama, or London subsidising Wales, from now on, New York, Alabama, London, and Wales subsidise Africa. Better hope that corruption doesn't become a problem.   

I'm well aware that the language thing will be controversial. French may have the dominant language a century ago (a language  I'm well versed in), but English took over after the Industrial Revolution and especially after the Great War. This means that throughout the whole duration of the digital age where mass communication was established English was the dominant language. It is already the most widely taught one, therefore I think implementing it would be the easiest. i'm definitely not suggesting abolishing or forgetting other languages.

The regional difference issue is pretty common for any language that is widespread. French spoken in Quebec differs from the one spoken in France or Africa, the same applies with Spanish spoken in Spain and Latin America. At most it will affect a few words/expressions or spelling, its definitely not something huge.

[Altherion]

Ironically, the current sentiment in a substantial number of countries is precisely the opposite of this. Despite a lot of effort, not even the countries of Europe (which are much more similar to each other than an equal number of randomly chosen countries from the whole world would be) could be truly united into a single nation. A world-wide state would be impossible for the same reasons and quite a few others. Here is a partial list of examples:

What political system would it have? There is no agreement even on the type, let alone on who would be in charge. Just to pick the three countries with the largest destructive capability: Chinese-style communism is very different from Russia's "sovereign democracy" and both are very different from the presidential republic of the US.

What economic system? Again, there is a wide spectrum of state interference and practically every other aspect of the economy.

To what extent should the state enforce conformity of religious and cultural values and what should these values be? Every state has some enforcement, but beyond simple things like murder and theft being bad, we don't actually agree on much (and even for the simple things, we don't agree on the punishment).

And of course there is a long list of issues with globalization which will be magnified by several orders of magnitude. Outside of science fiction futures where all nations evolve to some common ideal or are united either by an outside threat or by a power that has grown great enough to impose its will on the whole world by force, it's very difficult to see this happening.

[House Balstroko]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Ironically, the current sentiment in a substantial number of countries is precisely the opposite of this. Despite a lot of effort, not even the countries of Europe (which are much more similar to each other than an equal number of randomly chosen countries from the whole world would be) could be truly united into a single nation. A world-wide state would be impossible for the same reasons and quite a few others. Here is a partial list of examples:

It's a shame that this is the prevailing sentiment. People are too afraid of the unknown

What political system would it have? There is no agreement even on the type, let alone on who would be in charge. Just to pick the three countries with the largest destructive capability: Chinese-style communism is very different from Russia's "sovereign democracy" and both are very different from the presidential republic of the US.

Definitely a democratic style of government. Out of those three i would say the US has the best one, although even that is severely flawed. There is no real need for a president since there are no countries. 

What economic system? Again, there is a wide spectrum of state interference and practically every other aspect of the economy.

Moderate Capitalism. I wouldn't go as far as laissez-faire as it is important to ensure that power doesn't fall into too few hands. Definitely not communism the way it was practiced in the 20th Century. The market should remain competitive as it will ensure there is innovation.

To what extent should the state enforce conformity of religious and cultural values and what should these values be? Every state has some enforcement, but beyond simple things like murder and theft being bad, we don't actually agree on much (and even for the simple things, we don't agree on the punishment).

I would say the way Star Trek depicts society is what should be strive for, even if not entirely realistic. Religion should play no part in politics and everyone is free to worship as he/she pleases.

And of course there is a long list of issues with globalization which will be magnified by several orders of magnitude. Outside of science fiction futures where all nations evolve to some common ideal or are united either by an outside threat or by a power that has grown great enough to impose its will on the whole world by force, it's very difficult to see this happening.

That remains to be seen. I think if a little effort is put in, we can very much reach a state where nationality loses its value and became truly global citizens. The internet largely tries to operate that way, so do international businesses. Borders are an outdated concept that will hopefully one day be removed.

 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

About 90% of conflicts throughout the world from the end of WW2 to the present day have been civil wars. Something tells me that forcing every ethnic and cultural group on Earth into the same country isn't exactly going to lead to "Less Conflicts" as per your point five.

It is also pretty funny that you want both democracy and "progressive cultural values" in this world state of yours, considering that the Western World makes up about 15% of the global population and is the only large region of the world where these ideas can be said to be truly popular. Good luck to your progressive parties in winning any elections. 

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

2. Tackling global issues: As a single nation, any problem that pops up instantly becomes a global problem, therefore it can be tackled collectively.

3.Greater income equality: Since every one falls under one banner, wealth can be distributed more evenly.

5. Less Conflict: Every squabble becomes a global issue, therefore can be tackled without the gridlock of the current setup.

 

These three seem either astonishingly optimistic or naive. Even within a nation not every problem or conflict that pops up becomes a national thing that is easily solved (and even when it does that does not make it more easily solved), and as for the equality thing again, even the most developed nations in the world have massive divisions of wealth by both class and area. The idea that applying a concept of global statehood would automatically change any of that is I'm afraid fantasy.


If the concept of nationhood ends it's either going to be replaced by smaller divisions of identity again  (something which obviously exists and has throughout history anyway), or by corporate entities and the identification of self with who you work for/whose products you use etc. You can entertain an end to the idea of nationhood but overwriting humanity's tendency to tribalism is an entirely different matter.

[AverageGuy]

If a totalitarian government comes to power and starts abusing a portion of its citizens, where do the refugees go?

[Buckwheat]

Re English becoming the common language, excuse my French, but fuck that noise. I do not want my language or any other to be "preserved and maintained" by some old-fashioned poets and local folklore music choirs, I want them to be used fully in all spheres of life - also politics and science, so they can keep developing their full potentials. I think your basic idea is very nice indeed, but this is a major flaw. If you really wanted to build such a society that cherishes diversity, then you would have to translate all the important dociments you have - laws, treaties, agreements, public news etc. - into all languages anybody might use as opposed to trying to make all people learn and use one only.

My ideas about colonising space are also pretty peculiar in that I think it is wrong, but being a linguist, the language thing is what rubbed me wrong most.

[House Balstroko]

41 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

About 90% of conflicts throughout the world from the end of WW2 to the present day have been civil wars. Something tells me that forcing every ethnic and cultural group on Earth into the same country isn't exactly going to lead to "Less Conflicts" as per your point five.

That remains to be seen, if there any conflics, the issues can be brought up to the ruling global body, and the issue can be handled. It won't be a case like the civil wars in Africa where its hard to prosecute people because of the different jurisdictions.

It is also pretty funny that you want both democracy and "progressive cultural values" in this world state of yours, considering that the Western World makes up about 15% of the global population and is the only large region of the world where these ideas can be said to be truly popular. Good luck to your progressive parties in winning any elections. 

I wouldn't go as far as saying that only Western countries are democratic. I mean sure China most definitely isn't, but countries like India, Brazil, Japan, Russia are, even though they have higher levels of corruption then the West. A large segment of the global population does live in somewhat democratic countries.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 hours ago, Datepalm said:

Since at the moment Africa is subsidizing New York, London, Alabama, etc with the exploitation of its resources and labour, that seems par the course. 

Disputes about EU transfers to Greece are going to look positively tame.

[House Balstroko]

34 minutes ago, AverageGuy said:

If a totalitarian government comes to power and starts abusing a portion of its citizens, where do the refugees go?

I highly doubt a totalitarian government would come to power in this scenario. If it does, it will likely be overthrown. 

[polishgenius]

Did you just list Russia as a democratic country? For fucking real?

 

9 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

If it does, it will likely be overthrown. 

Democracy, fuck yeah!
Overthrown by whom?

[House Balstroko]

9 minutes ago, Buckwheat said:

Re English becoming the common language, excuse my French, but fuck that noise. I do not want my language or any other to be "preserved and maintained" by some old-fashioned poets and local folklore music choirs, I want them to be used fully in all spheres of life - also politics and science, so they can keep developing their full potentials. I think your basic idea is very nice indeed, but this is a major flaw. If you really wanted to build such a society that cherishes diversity, then you would have to translate all the important dociments you have - laws, treaties, agreements, public news etc. - into all languages anybody might use as opposed to trying to make all people learn and use one only.

I am in no way suggesting that French or any language should be forgotten. In fact i am fluent in French myself as it is like a second language to me. The reason I am suggesting English be the dominant language is because it is already the global language of business. I'm not doing it out of preference (even though English societies would obviously benfit the most). We need a global language in a global society, relying on translators will not do. The alternative would be to create a language from scratch which would just complicate things.

My ideas about colonising space are also pretty peculiar in that I think it is wrong, but being a linguist, the language thing is what rubbed me wrong most.

Why do you think colonizing space is wrong? Why should humanity be restricted to Earth? 

I understand the language thing rubbing people the wrong way as it is a very controversial topic in itself.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

I'm well aware that the language thing will be controversial. French may have the dominant language a century ago (a language  I'm well versed in), but English took over after the Industrial Revolution and especially after the Great War. This means that throughout the whole duration of the digital age where mass communication was established English was the dominant language. It is already the most widely taught one, therefore I think implementing it would be the easiest. i'm definitely not suggesting abolishing or forgetting other languages.

The regional difference issue is pretty common for any language that is widespread. French spoken in Quebec differs from the one spoken in France or Africa, the same applies with Spanish spoken in Spain and Latin America. At most it will affect a few words/expressions or spelling, its definitely not something huge.

You're missing the point - making English the international language imposes not just a monoculture, but an Anglo-Saxon-centric monoculture. Treating other languages like residual oddities... you're destroying "non-Anglo-Saxon" ways of seeing the world.

Again, why not Esperanto? It's easier than English by design, and you're not dealing with rampant cultural imperialism. 

[Happy Ent]

What you advocate is some version of Plato’s Republic. A benevolent construction that runs society to the benefit of everybody. This dream has been with us for centuries, and most political philosophies are subject to this “spell of Plato” in some version or the other.

I completely reject this. The main reason is the empirical observation that people has different goals, both as individuals and as groups. These goals are in conflict with each other. People simply disagree in how the ideal state looks, and this disagreement is a good thing. From this disagreement is born a rich tapestry of different ways of organising societies. This is a good thing; most human progress (intellectual as well as moral) is born out of this diversity of ideas (manifested in diverse organisational structures).

The strongest antidote for the spell of Plato (and the totalitarian dream of a world government) is Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies (which, to my surprise, was immensely readable.) 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

30 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

That remains to be seen, if there any conflics, the issues can be brought up to the ruling global body, and the issue can be handled. It won't be a case like the civil wars in Africa where its hard to prosecute people because of the different jurisdictions.

So why aren't all civil wars solved like that already? Just bring the issue to the ruling national body, and then let it be "handled". If that doesn't work now (which it doesn't), why would it work by just making everything bigger in scale? Don't really get your point about prosecution laws in Africa either, because that is hardly the reason for the constant civil wars down there. 

 

30 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

I wouldn't go as far as saying that only Western countries are democratic. I mean sure China most definitely isn't, but countries like India, Brazil, Japan, Russia are, even though they have higher levels of corruption then the West. A large segment of the global population does live in somewhat democratic countries.

Democratic yes, kind of. But that is not at all the same thing as the "progressive cultural values" that you mentioned. Modi, the Prime Minister of India, has very strong ties to Hindu nationalism. The political discourse in Japan, while similar to the West in some ways, is radically different in others (such as regarding gender roles, immigration, the role of monarchy in society, and so on). Russia is Russia. Brazil I guess is the most similar to the West politically, though you yourself allude to its extremely high levels of corruption and inequality. 

In any case, if you had a global democracy it is beyond doubt that the ideas that would end up winning popular support would be very different from the what the mainstream political views are in the USA or Western Europe today. 

[Buckwheat]

Creating a language from scratch would at least not give preference to one of the existing linguistic groups. Or, it actually might, depending on who is creating a language - because this group of people would still be starting from their own position, probably making the new language syntactically similar to their own, because it seems the most natural and logical to them. Everybody is influenced by their own language.

I think humanity should be restricted to Earth because we are pigs enough (no offence to pigs meant) to ruin our own planet and should not be allowed to do so to the planets that are not ours to ruin. For the benefit of the possible civilisation and life forms that might develop on those other planets thousands of years into the future if we let their planets' environments be. I just dislike expansionistic tendencies.

(Also, the idea of space travel IRL personally creeps me out. It is fine in SciFi, but that is where it should stay. Some things should better stay a mystery. I usually do not find it "good news" when they report a sonde landed on Mars or wherever. Just does not seem important to me and not something humanity should be dealing with. Of course this is just a personal taste thing that should not be affecting and political opinions.)